By no means are The Met going to enter a working embassy, anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.It is hard to tell, but I think they already did.
Everybody needs to stop overreacting.BUT I'M FREAKIN OUT, MAN
Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published themSydney Morning Herald
UNITED States prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to a confidential internal email obtained from a private US intelligence company, Stratfor.Yes, that would be the easiest way to punish him for raping some women, which at least his lawyer as admitted to.
In the email, sent to Stratfor intelligence analysts on January 26 last year, the company's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks. He wrote: "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."
He's "getting a pass" because your position is that a person sufficiently famous/connected/powerful/useful-for-other-reasons gets asylum in an embassy and doesn't have to stand trial. Assange is abusing the tenets of international law more than the British, who (as has been explained upthread) are going through the established rules, albeit aggressively.You should blame Ecuador, not Assange. It's their decision who does and does not get asylum.
Political asylum is important. It's not for this.
I would be surprised to learn this is different in Sweden or Britain.Prosecutors can make whatever kind of deal they want in order to get an extradition. The US routinely agrees not to seek the death penalty to get people in countries that forbid extradition to death penalty countries.
I just don't think the claim that Assange is being politically targeted by Sweden has been sufficiently supportedWhy does it need to be supported? All that matters is whether or not Assange and the Ecuadorian government believe it's true. It's belief not the actual facts that are guiding their actions. After all, they have no way of knowing what the actual facts are.
17 August 2010What caused the Swedish authorities to issue a warrant, retract it, and then let Assange go the day before they decided that they needed to arrest him? It could be internal bungling. It could be external political pressure. Honestly I was on the fence until the Interpol alert was issued — something they rarely do for any suspect. So how did Assange go from an uninteresting suspect to someone Sweden wanted so badly?
Mr Assange reportedly has sex with a woman he met at the seminar on 14 August, identified as "Miss W".
Some time between 17 and 20 August, "Miss W" and "Miss A" - the woman who arranged his speaking trip - are in contact and apparently share with a journalist the concerns they have about aspects of their respective sexual encounters with Mr Assange.
18 August 2010
Mr Assange applies for a residence permit to live and work in Sweden. He hopes to create a base for Wikileaks there, because of the country's laws protecting whistle-blowers.
20 August 2010
The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Karin Rosander, head of communications, says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation.
Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual.
Wikileaks quotes Mr Assange as saying the accusations are "without basis" and that their appearance "at this moment is deeply disturbing". A later message on the Wikileaks Twitter feed says the group has been warned to expect "dirty tricks".
21 August 2010
The arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.
Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
The lawyer for the two women, Claes Borgstrom, lodges an appeal to a special department in the public prosecutions office.
31 August 2010
Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges.
1 September 2010
Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange, eleven days after a chief prosecutor announced the arrest warrant had been dropped. Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular.
"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape."
Ms Ny says the investigation into the molestation claim will also be extended. She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either"
Robbery; burglary, defined to be the breaking into or entering either in day or night time, a house, office, or other building of a government, corporation, or private person, with intent to commit a felony therein.Samuel Loring Morison was convicted of theft of government property via the Espianoge Act in the mid eighties for leaking secret government information to the press.
1. Extradition need not be granted for an offense which has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the requested State, but if the offense has been committed in the requested State by an officer or employee of the requesting State, who is a national of the requesting State, the executive authority of the requested State shall, subject to its laws, have the power to surrender the person sought if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so.If I read that correctly, it means that the suspect can be extradited even if accused of crimes not committed in the territory of the requesting state if the requested state has similar laws. I wonder if a similar clause exists in the US/UK treaty.
2. When the offense has been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction [*7] of the requesting State, the request for extradition need not be honored unless the laws of the requesting State and those of the requested State authorize prosecution of such offense under corresponding circumstances.
"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange."From here.
There exists no legal or procedural obstacle to the Swedish authorities taking the Appellant's evidence now by telephone, by video-link, in person at an Embassy, or in person via in the United Kingdom by means of Mutual Legal Assistance provisions, and ending the preliminary investigation. The Appellant has offered all of the above. The Swedish prosecutor has so far declined them all; without substantive reason.Citation or concession.
So, if Assange is asking for something that's actually impossible to grant under the treaty, does that change things for his defenders in this thread?What question are you even trying to ask here?
We were also talking about "is this a legitimate use of political asylum?"Again, that's up to the government of Ecuador to judge. Obviously Assange would think it is, why wouldn't he?
But there's been no actual evidence that the charges are trumped-up other than repeated assertions of a secret conspiracy between the US, the UK, and Sweden.No one has accused the UK of being involved in a conspiracy. If you can't be bothered to state the other side's position accurately it probably means you're not arguing in good faith.
Then why have you spent so much time talking about it? talking about whether it's legal and so on, if you don't even care?How much would you be willing to bet that the US doesn't extradite him from Sweden?With specific respect to the rape accusation, I don't know or care if they do or don't. That's a total distraction from the legitimacy of the rape accusation and Assange's requirement to cooperate with Swedish authorities regarding it.
Ironmouth - are you really unaware of what asylum entails?Apparently, he doesn't understand the difference between requesting asylum and granting it.
This claim bears almost no relationship to the actual treaty between the US and Sweden, linked upthread.Again though: If you've said yourself you don't even care whether or not he's extradited to the U.S, why are you even talking about it?
and Metafilter is going along with it, hook, line and stinker. Disgraceful.There are, like, 3 or 4 users doing that. Not that it isn't annoying.
The main reason for the court ordering extradition was simply that a valid European Arrest Warrant (EAW) had been issued. If a valid EAW is correctly served on the correct person then, unless it can be shown that it is disproportionate, an abuse of process, or otherwise a violation of the defendant's human rights, a United Kingdom court is bound to order extradition, just as a Swedish court would be bound to order the extradition of a person requested by the UK government under an EAW.http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/assange-eaw-sexual-sweden
It was contended by Assange's UK lawyers that it was not a valid EAW, for it had not been issued by a competent authority. This was always going to be a difficult submission, as the EAW had already been certified by the United Kingdom's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). But even if there was still doubt on this, Assange's own expert witnesses from Sweden confirmed that it had been validly issued. Once this fundamental question had been decided then it would have been exceptional had the EAW been refused on any other grounds.
It was submitted that the EAW had been issued too early in the criminal process: that it should not be used to aid an investigation but rather it should only be in respect of a formal charge. This was a stronger point for the Assange team to raise, and offers perhaps his best hope of a successful appeal. However, the court had the evidence of the Swedish prosecutor that Assange was not being sought to assist with inquiries but for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings. The EAW was issued because "there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences". In response to this, Assange relied on the evidence of two Swedish legal experts. However, their evidence on this and other key points was to be fatally undermined by Assange's own Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig.
In Hurtig's "proof" (or prepared) witness statement, he had said "astonishingly [the prosecutor] made no effort to interview [Assange] on the rape charge to get his side of the story" whilst Assange was still in Sweden. This was a highly important statement, but it was completely untrue. Indeed, in the sort of criticism rarely made by an English judge, it was held that Hurtig had deliberately sought to mislead the court on this point. The effect of this was catastrophic for the Assange case: not only did it discredit Hurtig, but the two key legal experts relied upon by Assange had wrongly based their expert evidence that the EAW should not have been issued on Hurtig's false claim.
By seeking to attack the credibility of the Swedish prosecutor, it appeared that Hurtig had provided evidence which, if retracted or disproved, had the effect of undermining any serious submission that the prosecutor had acted disproportionately in seeking Assange's extradition under an EAW. As District Judge Riddle concluded, it would have been a reasonable assumption for the prosecutor to make that Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation.
Once the EAW was held to be valid, and any evidence as to disproportionality undermined by Assange's own Swedish witness, then the court had no difficulty in dealing with the many other points raised. Sweden is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and so Assange can rely on any engaged Convention rights once extradited; the Swedish court is better placed than the London court to deal with any alleged abuses of process; the legal arguments before the Swedish court will be in public, even if the Swedish courts take witness evidence regarding sexual offences and rape in private; and the offences alleged were also offences in UK law (which, of course, no serious person could doubt).
delmoi, please read the comments people write. You're mischaracterizing what I said because you seem to believe I have some sort of secret agenda and am arguing in bad faith.I don't think you have a secret agenda, but your arguments don't make that much sense.
What I said, as is quoted in your own long comment, is that with respect to the rape accusation it is irrelevant whether he'll be extradited or not. Obviously I find the subject interesting if I'm willing to waste this much time talking about it.Well, like I asked: why does it even matter whether or not Sweden can make that promise, given the treaties it's signed? What conclusion are people supposed to draw? Why would it change anyone's opinion about Assange? It seems like a completely irrelevant side point.
With specific respect to the rape accusation, I don't know or care if they do or don't. That's a total distraction from the legitimacy of the rape accusation and Assange's requirement to cooperate with Swedish authorities regarding it.There was even more to that comment, but it already derailed the thread once and it seems pointless to open Pandora's Box a second time.
More generally, I think it's possible they might, though not a certainty, and I hope they don't.
If he's charged with rape, he's got to answer for it.My understanding is that he's being accused of crimes (and not with rape, specifically, but something more like sexual assault) that carry about a 1.5 year prison sentence. And he's already been under house arrest for longer than that.
The fact that he might be extradited afterwards doesn't bear on the need to answer to the rape accusation. That's how the rule of law has to work -- the alternative is an endless series of arbitrary ad hoc decisions.Sure, okay, you can argue that we should uphold the rule of law and he should go back to Sweden and face punishment. Not everyone favors the rule of law if it yields seemingly unjust outcomes.
Let's say I am charged with murder. For whatever reason, I believe I will be executed if I face the charge. By your logic, I must do so regardless.-- ssgPretty much. That's the social compact in a nutshell, isn't it? Yeah, I was going to make the same analogy. Let's try to make it a little more concrete:
That's the social compact in a nutshell, isn't itSo you're like literally a hobbsian? Social compact theory has been obsolete for centuries.
Social contract theories were eclipsed in the nineteenth century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the twentieth, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.If you're going to base your argument on philosophical ideas that are hundreds of years out of date, you can't expect people to agree with you.
I don't have a link, but I remember reading it when it first came out. Something about her having ties to the CIA as well - but I'm pretty sure the blog got wiped when it started to pop up a lot more.I remember that as well. If you know the accusers name it's pretty easy to google for.
You really didn't think Assange chose Ecuador by chance, did you?I'm pretty sure it was because the president publicly offered him asylum when this whole thing was getting started.
What trolling? You can be sure that the Ecuadorian Foreign Affairs Ministry, never mind the diplomats in place at the embassy, are less-than-thrilled about this whole matter.Right, because obviously they agree with you. Couldn't possibly appreciate a little excitement in what would otherwise be a pretty boring post.
The document raises British concern about the reports that theSo even the Brits didn't quite say that they'd storm the embassy, merely that they can and will get a court order to enter the embassy.
president is considering offering asylum. It says London's preferred
course, even if asylum is offered, is to continue discussions on a
mutually acceptable outcome.
However the note did point out that the foreign secretary had the power to go to court to seek the right for UK police to enter the Ecuadorean embassy to arrest Assange. He would have to prove that international law had been broken and that Ecuador was in contravention of its Vienna Convention obligations in harbouring Assange.
The foreign office is confident these conditions would be met. It says the embassy would have a week's notice of the action and the police would not look at or remove any embassy documents and the diplomatic immunity of Ecuadorean diplomats would not be affected.
A foreign office spokesman said that the UK government realised this
would be a serious step, but added 'it is not as serious as ending
diplomatic relations'. He said the UK saw its paramount obligation
was the legal duty to extradite Assange.
The US has more leverage over Sweden than the UK, and Sweden has already participated in extraordinary renditions.This is what gets me. Nobody in their right mind doubts that the UK will do anything the US asks, so why go through all these hurdles and not just extradite him directly? The UK is pretty much wholly supine to the US, so it doesn't make sense.They have more leverage over Sweden than over their most important European ally? Sure. The UK has done rather a lot more than just participate in extraordinary renditions.
As you can read yourself, in the bit which you read as "trolling", I wrote : "But this is Julian Assange, so high drama was to be expected."See Skeptic, this is why you're being called a troll: because you're pretending that you can't tell the difference between being the inventor of sliced bread and being a famous journalist who's published millions of classified documents and enraged a superpower when it comes to whether there are reasonable grounds to request political asylum.
Of course that the (in)famous journalist bit matters. But Julian Assange could be the inventor of sliced bread, I still wouldn't want him to evade justice if he had raped someone.
The concern in the Assange camp has always been that temporary surrender may allow a rapid transfer of Assange from Sweden to the US with no due process or appeal rights. That can't happen under the extradition agreements between the US and the UK.(Bob Carr is the Australian Foreign Minister and DFAT is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, by the way.)
So if Carr is suggesting that it is credible to maintain that Assange may be safer from extradition to the US in Sweden than the UK, he's simply wrong. If he'd said that there's a view that temporary surrender comes with the same appeal rights and due process that regular extradition has, then he'd have been on far safer ground, because some credible lawyers do maintain (and I understand it's the DFAT view as well) that there's nothing special about temporary surrender compared to ordinary extradition processes. The only problem has been, Assange would be gambling on that issue with his life if he went to Sweden.
Libya murdered a british police officer via their embassy. Russia murdered one of their own. We let all the people in the Libyan embassy leave and basically just ignored that whole Polonium thing. And you think diplomatic relations with Ecuador are already so fraught that we'd kick them out for harbouring an asylum seeking alleged rapist?Russia is obviously a more important relationship then Ecuador, though. The UK might feel more comfortable pushing around a small country then one of the world's nuclear powers.
This is what gets me. Nobody in their right mind doubts that the UK will do anything the US asks, so why go through all these hurdles and not just extradite him directly? The UK is pretty much wholly supine to the US, so it doesn't make sense.Right, obviously everyone who disagrees with you "isn't in their right mind". Apparently the knowledge that the UK has denied US extradition requests in the past causes people to go insane, or something. Extraditions to the US actually a politically sensitive issue in the U.K. There's no guarantee that the UK will extradite someone just because we ask.
See Skeptic, this is why you're being called a troll: because you're pretending that you can't tell the difference between being the inventor of sliced bread and being a famous journalist who's published millions of classified documents and enraged a superpower when it comes to whether there are reasonable grounds to request political asylum.Yeah exactly. Pretending that Assange is just a run of the mill criminal, that his political activities are irrelevant to his asylum application and arguing from there isn't going to convince anyone of anything, it's just a waste of everyone's time.
Quite. Especially since Assange was looking to move himself and Wikileaks to Sweden before the alleged crimes. If Sweden is so acquiescent to the US, why was he trying to base himself there?
1. People who think that normal laws shouldn't apply to Assange because he thought of Wikileaks and pissed off the US, and that Rafael Correa is a champion of freedom and justiceI haven't seen any posts by anyone in group 1, but I am constantly assured that they exist so maybe I just skimmed over them all by accident. 4 misunderstands the way that the rights of a defendant are balanced against the oppressive powers of the state in a criminal trial, perhaps deliberately. 3 is fair enough if you think Assange is too blond to stay free or something, I guess. So I'm left with 2.
2. People who look at the whole saga (e.g. as summarised here) and conclude that the way the case against Assange has been handled has been so ridiculously overwrought that the likelhood of it ceasing to be ridiculously overwrought if he is extradited to Sweden is small
3. "Move along, nothing to see here"
4. People who think any allegation of a crime involving sex should carry with it an assumption of guilt, and that the accused should never be able to rely on any evidence other than the accused's own testimony
Article 1Assange could be made a diplomatic agent by Ecuador, yes. If recognised, all that could happen is that he gets PNGed, due to Article 29:
(e) A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the
mission;
(i) The “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary
thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.and Article 31
1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.and, crucially in this case
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of [real estate sale/commercial undertaking issues which aren't relevant].
2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.However, this all doesn't apply to Assange due to Article 39:
In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:posted by jaduncan at 6:45 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]
(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty [this is interpreted widely, because of state immunity];
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.
In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.I strongly suspect the police officers/diplomatic staff in the Ecadorian embassy have a letter in their pocket, if they have not already passed it over.
Right, obviously everyone who disagrees with you "isn't in their right mind". Apparently the knowledge that the UK has denied US extradition requests in the past causes people to go insane, or something. Extraditions to the US actually a politically sensitive issue in the U.K. There's no guarantee that the UK will extradite someone just because we ask.No, it means that there is either a reason--like the one you stated, or others have stated--for extraditing him to Sweden first, or the US isn't involved at all. I'm agnostic on the issue of who is involved and how, but not on that fact that the UK government would do anything the US asked. I agree that an extradition from the UK to the US would be politically-charged, moreso given the atrocious law they passed some years ago. But I don't doubt that such an extradition would be politically-charged in any country.
Put another way, let's say there's no political anything. Just a guy who committed a crime in America and is afraid that his extradition to Sweden will allow the US to extradite him back. Where, in any law, is his right to say "sorry, but I'm afraid the US will extradite me, so I'm not gonna allow myself to be extradited." There is none. zero.The right is at the point where your sentence continues, "...where the US may well torture or execute me, or deny me due process of law, as they have done to dozens of people in the very recent past."
posted by Ironmouth at 9:18 AM on August 16
According to the timeline posted above, Assange applied for Swedish residence on the 18th August 2010, which is after the release of the Iraq documents. And he made this application on the basis that Swedish law would protect him as a whistelblower. Therefore, at least on than date and for some time afterwards, he was confident that Sweden would refuse any extradition request from the US.
The allegations of rape should not have altered that situation in any way. The only things that has changed legally are the rape allegations, the EAW and his failures in UK court to fight extradition to Sweden. Now, of course, he's claiming a corrupt Swedish legal system, and a Sweden that has a government supine enough to hand him over the US at a moment's notice.
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.[225][226] Assange has described all the sexual encounters as consensual.[227][228] The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne, as the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser charges, and re-issued by Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape.[229] In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning.posted by unSane at 9:50 AM on August 16, 2012
In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27thSeptember 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him.Repeatedly this was asserted in Assange-related threads. The statement was designed to make it look like it was an after-the fact prosecution. The statement was false.
A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd.” He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
The Swedish system emphasises the importance of early interrogation (Mr Alhem). Ms Ny contacted Mr Hurtig and asked to interrogate his client. Mr Hurtig cannot say for certain whether that was on 21st(as Ms Ny says in her written information) or 22nd September. The 28th September was suggested as a date for interrogation.The findings of fact are particularly devastating. The the judge accuses Assange's lawyer of lying about these key facts:
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st–29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.
14. I am sure that constant attempts were made by the prosecuting authorities to arrange interrogation in the period 21st– 30th September, but those attempts failed. It appears likely (transcript p.107) that enquiries were made by the authorities independent of his lawyer. The authorities believed Mr Assange would be in Sweden to give a lecture in early October. They asked Mr Hurtig to be available on the evening of 6th October. It appears that either the rumours were false, or Mr Assange changed his mind. In any event he was not apprehended or interrogated then.
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
This objection has been raised to me repeatedly and all I can say is that the US is an aggressive neoimperial security state, not some science-fictional dystopia. The cost-benefit analysis of disappearing Assange is totally different then it is for disappearing someone randomly picked up on a battlefield -- and unless Assange is going to be totally and permanently disappeared, he won't be tortured, because eventually he'll be able to speak to a worldwide audience.Unless of course, they never release him. Which they may never do, once he's blackholed. Don't forget, there are still people at GTMO being held after having been cleared of charges. I'll posit they're being held because the USG doesn't want anyone to know what they have to say.
Assange's celebrity and the nebulous nature of these still-unarticulated changes against him puts him into a completely different category than either Guantanamo prisoners or Bradley Manning. He wouldn't be treated the same.But that's the thing - we don't know what category he'd be put in. He's not a US citizen, and therefore not entitled to the protections of the US constitution. He's not a foreign military soldier, so he's not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions. By what, then, is he protected? The good will of the United States Government?
posted by gerryblog at 12:42 PM on August 16
The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments which require us to recognise the grant of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy in this country.posted by acb at 1:43 PM on August 16, 2012
I have seen no legal arguments presented (certainly none by Assange) that would protect him from extradition to Sweden based on a hypothetical extradition request by the US.That's because, until he is secreted off to Syria to await an ostensible trial by military tribunal for being an enemy combatant - or, equally likely, arrested and held in New York City for charges of Espionage, and tried publicly in a civil court of law - it's not a legal question because he doesn't have standing. Discussion of what may or may not happen is a purely political question, and seeking asylum is a political recourse.
Opinion polls showed that the population of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate, and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council." Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account.American indifference to global opinion isn't a "thing," it's a fact. It's similar to our indifference to world opinion on Iran, and our continued insistence that despite all of the treaties, all of the agreements, and all of the precedents from the last decade of the complete and undeniable failure of US foreign policy, we will not take invasion off of the table. Even when our allies in Israel decide to assassinate scientists in Iran, Iran lacks the political clout to win the smallest condemnation from the UN because they know we will veto the mildest warnings for international terrorism — at least when it's "our team" with their finger on the trigger.
Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, called the US's attitude five months before the invasion a "threat to world peace". He said they were sending a message that "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries"; a message which "must be condemned in the strongest terms."
Also, the message the US is sending by politically pressuring the relevant countries to "throw the book" at Assange is quite powerful by itself.Pardon my ignorance, but is there any actual evidence that the US is politically pressuring the relevant countries? If so, could you please link to it? Thanks.
The evidence that there is pressure being applied doesn't really indicate where the pressure is coming fromOK, let me amend my question:
Do you think there is reason to think it's coming from somewhere that doesn't include the USA?This question presumes that I know what evidence you're talking about. Which is exactly what I'm asking about.
Why did Hillary Clinton go to Sweden (first such visit in a long time) just four days after the UK court ruled Assange would be extradited? I'm certain it wasn't for the knäckebröd.I get the feeling that you think I'm arguing a certain stance, rather than asking for evidence of the assertion that US exerting pressure to throw the book at Assange. Why are you asking me why Hillary Clinton did something? I didn't even know she did. That's why I'm asking. Am I expected to give some reason for it Hillary Clinton doing that? Because, apparently, I'm arguing against you? Why not just (as I asked) please link to any evidence that you have?
the AUMF and the subsequent modifications of that law would not allow that. The military tribunal would lack jurisdiction. An entirely new law, made before any arrest would have to be drafted. A third-grader with a crayon could write that habeus petition.But, and I ask this in all seriousness, what good is a petition if the 4th Am. does not apply? You seem to be arguing from a position of rule of law being paramount, and that's admirable, but the USA has shown that it is not always bound by same. This is a government that has summarily executed its own citizens without substantial political fallout.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:56 PM on August 16
1. People who think that normal laws shouldn't apply to Assange because he thought of Wikileaks and pissed off the US, and that Rafael Correa is a champion of freedom and justiceI don't have a problem with him getting a fair trial in Sweden. There are a bunch of questions regarding that, though: Whether or not this is a "normal" application of the law and how good is Sweden's judicial system when dealing with politically charged cases? In the U.S. at least, with regards to someone who wasn't famous, a case with the same facts would probably not even be brought to trial, and if it was it probably wouldn't get a conviction. But I don't really know much about Swedish law.
2. People who look at the whole saga (e.g. as summarised here) and conclude that the way the case against Assange has been handled has been so ridiculously overwrought that the likelhood of it ceasing to be ridiculously overwrought if he is extradited to Sweden is small
My point is that being, St. Assange, a Very Important Person, the Provider of Truth to the Masses, or even the Absolute Cure to All Evil In the World shouldn't enable anyone to evade rape charges by claiming political asylum ... unless there was some kind of evidence that those charges are bogus -- SkepticThe problem is, it's up to the government of Ecuador, not random posters on Metafilter. Obviously people disagree about how 'bogus' or 'trumped up' the charges actually are.
Such as his fear of an all-encompassing yet invisible transnational conspiracy that is out to get him, one that is obvious and blatant despite the lack of any evidence?He's never said that there is an 'all-encompassing yet invisible transnational conspiracy'. He's said he's afraid of being Extradited to the U.S. If Sweden's extradition treaty to the U.S. allows them to extradite anyone they want, there doesn't even need to be any conspiring for that to happen.
Also: people have said that the US might bring terrorism charges against Assange, but is that really possible? Has the definition of terrorism expanded to include republishing leaked US military secrets?He'd be charged with espionage, not terrorism.
I can't believe I hit refresh on this horrible thread when I woke up, but Pyrogenesis, the argument/analogy that was being shouted at me when I went to sleep was that rape is like a traffic ticket.A DUI can carry a longer prison sentence then what a normal person would get in Sweden for what happened, if that normal person was charged at all. It's very unlikely that someone would be convicted of rape in the U.S. or most countries in a fair trial. He might be guilty of some other crime under Swedish law.
I'm agnostic on the issue of who is involved and how, but not on that fact that the UK government would do anything the US asked. -- JehanWell. What difference does it make how you feel about the U.S/UK relationship? The U.K has defied US extradition requests in the past, so there is no guarantee it would work.
Ironmouth, stop with the nonsense. If you want justice to be served, start a campaign to get the USG to issue a legally binding statement that they will not extradite Assange from Sweden so the trial can continue.He's admitted in another thread he actually doesn't even understand formal logic. Arguing with him is a total waste of time. He hates Assange and wants to see him tried in the U.S. He wants him to go to Sweden so that can happen. The claim about this great injustice is just a way to avoid the actual discussion while appealing to inflammatory rhetoric.
November? There's no way he could be extradited before November.Wait, didn't just yesterday you say:
Listen, one way or another, by tomorrow night he will be in UK custody. He will be in Sweden by Friday.posted by Staggering Jack at 7:43 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]
If it may be feared that detention will cause serious harm to a suspect by reason of his age, health status or similar factor, detention may only take place if adequate supervision of the suspect outside of detention cannot be arrangedYou do understand the point of an analogy, right? In the Analogy the person fears being killed by prison gangs, in this situation it's Assange fearing extradition. There's probably no risk of him being hurt in Swedish prison, the problem is if he's extradited, in which case it won't matter if he's in Swedish prison, or in some other secure location.
Ecuador has granted Julian Assange asylum, kicking off an epic diplomatic standoff. While he sits inside the Ecuadorian embassy, British police have to stand by outside and wait. If they go inside (or "storm" it, as one official claimed the police threatened to do), they'd be violating one of the most fundamental diplomatic rules between nations, and would endanger British embassies around the world by setting a needless precedent.posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:26 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Foreign Office has tweeted a statement making it clear that they still intend to extradite Assange. It said, "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution. Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal UK authorities are under binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian Government's decision this afternoon does not change that." So, where does that leave Assange?
He always knew that he would be arrested if he left the embassy—he's violated his bail conditions, after all. Now, though, he knows that if he can get to Ecuador he won't have to answer the rape allegations in Sweden. That means he has to find a way out of the United Kingdom, but there's absolutely no reason to expect the British authorities to allow that to happen.
It's important to make it clear here that what he's been accused of is definitely rape by British law, too—this isn't something that only the Swedes prosecute, no matter what Assange may think. As others have noted (like Anna North at Jezebel), it's deeply depressing that so many people have automatically assumed that the women allegedly raped in this case must have some secret, ulterior motive.
It is not a very good analogy then. Would I surrender myself over for a lesser crime if it would mean I would be at risk for being prosecuted for a bigger one? Maybe not, but I wouldn't expect to be anything other than a fugitive.This doesn't really make that much sense. First of all, your failure to understand the concept of an Analogy doesn't make any particular analogy a 'bad' one. features aren't supposed to match up exactly, they're just supposed to be analogous.
Law experts, human rights groups, and advocates for civil liberties and international law are expressing outrage and concern just days after the Obama administration's chief prosecutor, Attorney General Eric Holder, publicly outlined and defended the US government's program to target and kill, without trial, individuals who it determines are affiliated with al Qaeda or deems a threat to national security.Notice that clause "or deems a threat to national security." That roughly translates to, "We kill whomever we choose, whenever we like, for whatever reasons we care." As an added bonus, under national security laws, they don't have to say who they killed or for what reasons until they deem that information safe to be declassified.
I agree. Or at least agree that the whistleblowing aspect of this should result to a not guilty verdict or a very light sentence. This does not apply to being prosecuted for unrelated crimes in Sweden.But it obviously factors in to his decision to avoid Sweden at all costs, and Ecuador's decision to grant him amnesty. In practice the two issues can't be separated, unless some kind of guarantee can be put in place to prevent his extradition from Sweden to the U.S.
delmoi, the central problem with the claim you're making here is that its logic applies to every single person who is charged with a crime, none of whom wants to go to prison (a dangerous, unpleasant place) and so all of whom are justified in doing anything they can to avoid it.No, that's what I'm arguing against. Some people are saying that everyone accused of any crime in any country needs to go to that country for a trial in order for 'justice' to be served, regardless of the consequences. And I am saying that's not correct and also kind of stupid.
Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.the Obama Administration hasn't charged Assange with any crimes, or even publicly accused him of breaking any laws, right?
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.So, internally, the Australian embassy in Washington told their colleagues in Australia that the US investigation has been ongoing for more than a year. Are we to believe that the US has been building a case against WikiLeaks and Assange for 18 months without intending to do anything?
...
Senator Carr has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange. In June, Senator Carr also told the ABC Insiders program: “I've received no hint that they've got a plan to extradite him . . . I would expect that the US would not want to touch this."
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”.
A legal charity has named two men who ended up in the infamous "dark prison" at Bagram in Afghanistan after being handed to US forces by members of the SAS. The men were held in Afghanistan after being seized by the British in Iraq.From 2011:
The charity Reprieve said it was suing the Ministry of Defence for refusing officially to identify the men, who are from Pakistan. The MoD argues that if it released their names, even to their families, it would be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
The director of Reprieve, Clive Stafford Smith, accused the ministry of "rank hypocrisy" for refusing to give the prisoners their rights while at the same time claiming it was upholding the rule of law.
David Davis, the former Conservative shadow home secretary, who has also taken up the case, described the ministry's refusal to release the names as an "insult". "If they are bad people, tell us who they are. I think the reason we are not being told is because it is politically embarrassing. They deserve a trial. We deserve to know what the truth is."
Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.From 2012:
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.
The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."
There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.
The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".
This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.You can find these sources yourself. I'm hoping it helps with your desire to know the truth instead of burying your head in false rhetoric.
...
...Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
...
In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”
Funny how he didn't seem all that concerned about avoiding Sweden until he was accused of rape. Seems odd he would request residency there if they're so eager to extradite him to the US.Only if you assume people can see into the future, which given the level of illogical arguments in this thread wouldn't surprise me.
Not really. He was asked a stupid question -- "Do you think Assange is closer to a high-tech terrorist, or to the Pentagon Papers [leaker, Daniel Ellsberg]?". He answered, closer to a high tech terrorist. That's about a hundred steps removed from al-Awlaki coaching and organizing terrorist attackers from Yemen.Of course, the actual Daniel Ellsberg has compared Bradly Manning to himself and supports Assange's asylum (as posted linked too in this thread). But apparently you know more about who is and isn't like Daniel Ellsberg then Daniel Ellsberg.
Say what you will about Julian Assange, but he is no Daniel Ellsberg.
delmoi, please, don't do this. You are misrepresenting what I wrote, which was that I wanted him to stand trial in Sweden, regardless of the outcome. The reason for this is that he stands accused of rape. ... And the outcome? I really don't care, as long as justice is served.None of what you just wrote contradicts my characterization of what you wrote at all. You don't care whether or not he's extradited to the U.S, and you don't claim to care whether he's extradited to the U.S Which is exactly what I said. How you feel about the final disposition of the rape charges is totally orthogonal. He could be found guilty and extradited to the U.S, or he could be found innocent and still extradited to the U.S, or he could very well be extradited to the U.S. before there's even a trial on those charges. The fact that you don't even mention it indicates you don't think it's important at all, or even worth mentioning, which is how I characterized your views.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be able to see into the future to know that he will be nabbed and disappeared if he returns to Sweden.One thing is predictable given the current information, another might not have been predictable given the information available at the time.
but it's certainly not proof that it does.It's evidence that it does. There is never going to be any definitive proof of this or anything else in the Universe. You can't even prove you exist. Epistemology is not the issue here.
What needs to stop is this ridiculous fantasy that Assange's civil rights would be trampled on, that the US wouldn't have to go through a standard, legal (and lengthy) extradition process, that Assange wouldn't be able to exercise all the rights he has in Swedish law to challenge the extradition, and that the US would automatically winWell, as other people have pointed out 1) Sweden has never refused extradition to the U.S. and 2) the treaty they have doesn't actually even allow them to refuse (Unless it's for a death penalty case)
Well, according to you, Assange's conditions can never be met.Well, to be specific Assange has asked them for a promise not to extradite, obviously they can't prove they won't break their promise in the future. Obviously there is a difference between a promise and proof that a promise will be kept, as the latter is impossible to give. He is asking for a promise, not proof.
Again, his supporters query why Sweden has not charged Assange. But that is not how the Swedish legal system works. Defendants are not charged until very late into proceedings, and just before prosecution. He cannot be charged until he is arrested, which can only take place in Sweden. The country is a democracy with an independent legal system, and it is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. But Assange's supporters argue that, if he is sent to Sweden to face his allegations, he will be extradited to the US. This is particularly puzzling. As leading QC Francis FitzGibbon has pointed out, under Section 58 of Britain's Extradition Act, Sweden would have to gain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. As signatories of the ECHR, neither country can extradite a suspect to a country where they will face the death penalty or "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:24 AM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
A lot of people in this thread are throwing around charges about the US torturing people (which I read "waterboarding"), sending them to Guantanamo, rendition, etc. But, you know, George Bush is not president any more. It's not reasonable to blame a country for previous governments (otherwise, you know, Germany.)I think I see the problem here. You just can't bring yourself to believe that Obama would have the same foreign policy as Bush, which is understandable, but also a faith-based reality that is unsustainable if you're interested in the truth.
Is there any evidence that these things have happened under Obama?
Here's what you offered:Those two individuals are still being held at Bagram and being denied due process by the Obama Administration, along with countless others, since it's illegal to know that information due to laws also upheld by the Obama Administration. So let's look at a prison opened up by "not George Bush":
"From 2010" -- the article was written that year, but it describes "two men who were taken by the SAS in Iraq in 2004." Five years before Obama became president.
Nestled in a back corner of Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport is a sprawling walled compound run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Set on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the facility looks like a small gated community, with more than a dozen buildings behind large protective walls and secured by guard towers at each of its four corners. Adjacent to the compound are eight large metal hangars, and the CIA has its own aircraft at the airport. The site, which airport officials and Somali intelligence sources say was completed four months ago, is guarded by Somali soldiers, but the Americans control access. At the facility, the CIA runs a counterterrorism training program for Somali intelligence agents and operatives aimed at building an indigenous strike force capable of snatch operations and targeted “combat” operations against members of Al Shabab, an Islamic militant group with close ties to Al Qaeda.Under the Obama Administration, at least one secret prison was built and is being funded and operated by the United States to render suspects to an underground prison in Mogadishu for interrogations that, by every account available to us, denies due process and is unchallenged evidence of the continuation of the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition. Deny that fact again and I won't bother responding.
As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, where prisoners suspected of being Shabab members or of having links to the group are held. Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu. While the underground prison is officially run by the Somali NSA, US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners. The existence of both facilities and the CIA role was uncovered by The Nation during an extensive on-the-ground investigation in Mogadishu. Among the sources who provided information for this story are senior Somali intelligence officials; senior members of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG); former prisoners held at the underground prison; and several well-connected Somali analysts and militia leaders, some of whom have worked with US agents, including those from the CIA. A US official, who confirmed the existence of both sites, told The Nation, “It makes complete sense to have a strong counterterrorism partnership” with the Somali government.
...
According to former detainees, the underground prison, which is staffed by Somali guards, consists of a long corridor lined with filthy small cells infested with bedbugs and mosquitoes. One said that when he arrived in February, he saw two white men wearing military boots, combat trousers, gray tucked-in shirts and black sunglasses. The former prisoners described the cells as windowless and the air thick, moist and disgusting. Prisoners, they said, are not allowed outside. Many have developed rashes and scratch themselves incessantly. Some have been detained for a year or more. According to one former prisoner, inmates who had been there for long periods would pace around constantly, while others leaned against walls rocking.
...
According to the former fellow prisoner, Hassan told him that his captors took him to Wilson Airport: “‘They put a bag on my head, Guantánamo style. They tied my hands behind my back and put me on a plane. In the early hours we landed in Mogadishu. The way I realized I was in Mogadishu was because of the smell of the sea—the runway is just next to the seashore. The plane lands and touches the sea. They took me to this prison, where I have been up to now. I have been here for one year, seven months. I have been interrogated so many times. Interrogated by Somali men and white men. Every day. New faces show up. They have nothing on me. I have never seen a lawyer, never seen an outsider. Only other prisoners, interrogators, guards. Here there is no court or tribunal.’”
To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, or maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.And then he signed three executive orders that he claimed would end that practice. Well, not really:
It is important to note, however, that it remains possible for US forces to continue their involvement with rendition, secret detention and torture whilst also remaining within the legal parameters set out by Obama’s Executive Orders. Specifically:"From 2012" - describes the drone killings, which are not in dispute -- but don't have anything to do with torture or Guantanamo (or Julian Assange.)
- Rendition itself has not been outlawed, and in fact explicitly remains as a valid counterterrorism tool. It is claimed that those subjected to rendition will be closely monitored to ensure proper treatment, although many human rights groups and lawyers argue that such ‘diplomatic assurances’ have proved worthless in the past.
- Secret detention and torture are only outlawed to the extent that the detainee is ‘in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict’. As long as the detainee cannot be said to be ‘under effective control’ of the US, or in a US-operated facility, CIA and DoD agents have not been expressly forbidden by the President from aiding the secret detention and torture conducted by others. There is evidence that this loophole has been exploited by the CIA in recent years. For example, reports have surfaced in recent years of involvement in the rendition, secret detention and torture of terror suspects in the Horn of Africa, in operations led by local security forces with the CIA playing an ‘advisory’ role.
- The CIA can still capture and hold temporarily terror suspects, before transferring them to DoD control or to third countries.
- All agencies within the DoD – including the elite units with a history of aggressive interrogation and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as those under the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) – retain the authority to detain terror suspects. This authority is pursuant to Bush’s Military Order of 13 November 2001, which has not been revoked by Obama. Importantly, this order mandates the indefinite military detention, at any ‘appropriate location’, of all individuals determined by the President to be a member of al Qaeda, or anyone involved in any way with any acts of international terrorism designed to damage US interests. Such detention can take place anywhere in the world, including outside of any theatres of conflict, and can still involve the extra-legal transfer of detainees between states for military detention elsewhere (military rendition). This continues to apply despite parallel efforts by the Obama administration to close Guantánamo Bay, and has facilitated a huge upswing in the numbers detained in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In this context, the New York Times reported that ‘the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the CIA from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantanamo closed within a year’.
There is a long-standing hypothesis (fictionalised in Robert Harris' The Ghost Writer, though predating it) that Tony Blair, the former British PM from the once left-wing Labour Party, who proved himself loyal to the PNAC neocons in the Iraq war, was groomed by the CIA from his university years and put into place as a US Trojan horse on the British Left. It could be that this (cultivating sleeper agents on sides of politics traditionally hostile to US interests, subtly giving them the resources to prevail and deploying them when needed. (Australia's Julia Gillard could be another candidate.) If this is an established doctrine and the CIA haven't been grooming people in the world's Pirate Parties (especially after their recent showing in German state elections), someone at the CIA has been sleeping on the job. If Sweden were to rendition Assange and the Pirates were to sweep to power in the next election, the US would want to ride that wave, and with some assets in the right places, may be able to do so, to let the chaos take its course and, when it stabilises, reassert the Washington Consensus.That seems really unlikely. It wouldn't be any more difficult for leftists to embed themselves in the college republicans or something like that either. The problem with that plan is if you do get someone to be popular and successful in the left-wing movement, they may simply become left-wing for real in the process.
Isn't your slogan "cite or concede"? If you can't point to a single incident of someone being extradited out of Europe using this long-established legal process and subsequently being tortured or disappeared by the US governmentIt's also never happened that someone has leaked thousands of US diplomatic cables. Everything about wikileaks is unprecedented.
A) things that will happenposted by delmoi at 4:51 PM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
B) things that might happen
C) things that won't happen
Your comments seem to be based on the idea that if you can't prove that something is in group A, then you must act as if it's in group C. That's completely nonsensical. Now, obviously some things are extremely likely, some are extremely unlikely, and others are indeterminate. Here we're talking about what is and isn't reasonable to think, not absolute certainty. But right now, whether or not Assange will be extradited to the US if he ends up in Sweden is clearly a realistic possibility.
In any event a lot of the comments in this thread are really strange. It's like a lot of people in this thread don't understand basic logic or something. It's like you think if you can't prove something will happen for sure happen, that means you've proven it can't ever happen at all.Okay, then, you think an event without precedent is very likely. You think this is a point in your favor?Things without precedent happen all the time, and nothing that happens every has an exact precedent, everything differs in some details. Earlier you asked about people being taken to the U.S. and thrown in gitmo after being in the legal system, and the answer is that it has happened. There were people snatched up after being.How exactly is Assange being persecuted? He seems to be getting extraordinarily lengthy consideration for a self confessed date rapist.He's never confessed to being a rapist. According to his lawyers, the accusation against him wouldn't qualify as a crime in most of the EU, but he hasn't agreed that the facts alleged are true, as far as I know. If you're going to make completely and obviously false statements, it's going to pretty much discredit everything you might say.I would love to know how you think this "claim" is relevant to Assange's position. When has the US asserted a right to "apprehend" Assange, to "torture" him, or to "murder" him? When have they in any way asserted any right to any extrajudicial actions against Assange of any kind?They have obviously claimed the right to extradite people from Sweden, which while other people are bringing up side issues is the main concern. How exactly Assange is treated if he does get extradited to the U.S isn't going to be very much fun for him even if he isn't tortured and even if he does in the end not get convicted of anything. He could be in prison for years under pretrial detention (there is obviously no way he'd get bail).
But the comment is also another example of people apparently unable to comprehend the concept of things that may happen, as opposed to thinking that if something can't be proven 100% it's false. You like trying to explain to a toddler whey they shouldn't eat 20 cupcakes when they can't count to 5.
So your back to arguing it wasn't rape rape?Lots of people think it wasn't rape. I've never heard of anyone in the US, or anywhere else, getting convicted for similar behavior. The thing with the Condom may have violated Swedish law, but that doesn't mean it counts as "rape". The women didn't even claim to have been raped when they first went to the police, they wanted to know if there was a way to force him to get an STD test.
He'd known these women for a few hours but felt that it was completely appropriate to initite sexual intercourse while they were asleep.That supposedly happened with one of the girls after they'd had sex the night before, then fell asleep together, naked. She had already consented to sex the night before. Would that consent have carried through to to the morning? Maybe not, but I'm not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for something like that before. She then woke up and continued having sex with him (which at this point, would have been consensual)
Then when they resisted their please and forced them to continue.Neither of these girls told him "no" or asked him to stop. There were no 'pleas' that he ignored.
“[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”Holding someone down forcibly and penetrating them against their will is rape.
OK, then let's not minimize what he is accused of doing - having bareback sex without consent - and we won't have to worry about perpetuating rape culture in the name of civil liberties.That's false. The first girl consented to having sex with him, but with a condom. She claims he did something to sabotage the condom, or something like that. But she did consent to having sex with him.
Your Occam's Razor is broken. The "don't multiply entities unnecessarily" solution here is that Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for rape.Another pretty clear example of illogical thinking. Occam's razor is just a heuristic, it doesn't tell you what's true and what isn't. You only use Occam's razor when both possibilities could be true given the data you have. It's only when you can't gather any more data that you would use it to guess about which one is more likely to be true. But, critically, in modern science you can not use it to rule something out, if it's possible that you could one day do an experiment to desperate two different explanations. In this case the "experiment" would be sending Assange back to Sweden, and seeing if the U.S. wants to extradite him. Until that happens you certainly can't use Occam's razor to predict it won't happen.
The amount of sneering contempt radiating from your side of the argument is really unbelievable.That's what happens when you have to explain over and over again how elementary logic works to people who don't seem to be capable of understanding it.
In late 2010, Ecuador offered Mr Assange residency but quickly rescinded the offer after controversy erupted and the US government reportedly made diplomatic representations against such action (article).Right, and going along with the whole "Occam's Razor" misunderstanding, if there were no U.S. involvement, the U.S. wouldn't have put pressure on Ecuador not to grant Asylum. It may be that it's "simpler" to say that it's only Sweden that's involved, but that's not consistent with the data.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [23 favorites]