Assange - How Ironic(37 Posts)
Assange upset at publishers
For a man that has made a career of releasing information into the public domain against various peoople's wishes, there's something marvellously ironic about him accusing his publisher of 'opportunisme and duplicity' for releasing his memoirs too early. Is that the sound of petards hoisting?
Did you read the extracts in the Indie this morning? "I did not rape those women" is particularly revealing in what it omits. He really is a conspiracy theorists dream.
As regards the irony of this, I think MISSING THE POINT is his preferred modus operandi. Tosser.
He does have one of those faces that you could flush down a toilet all day and not get tired of....
Sometimes life is funnier than fiction. Oh, Assange! Bless!
<cynical> I reckon this is just a publicity stunt
he wants to get maximum coverage of his version of the truth
or maybe Assange's revenge against the publisher - who he had fallen out with
It is all very well saying he did not rape them, but his legal team tried to claim that non-consensual sex was not rape, when it is. It is a pretty poor defence that makes you look more guilty after their defence than before it. What was it Robertson said during the first hearing "what may start off as unwanted, may later with empathy be accepted". or somethign tot hat effect - what the hell is thta meant to mean.
This is what GR said "What may be unwanted one moment can with further empathy become desired"!!! If i was Assange I would strangle my defence if they said that as if it was unwanted then it was rape!
And then the media lawyer (stephens I think) standing outdie harping on about Hamlet - did he not realise Hamlet was set in Denmark not Sweden, and Hamlet was a delusional conspiracy theorist with issues about women and their sexuality -why not compare him to Fred West and have done with it. Worst defence team ever., they mad ehim look really dodgy.
Kelly I think that quote can also be applied to Stockhausen's syndrome. Says it all.
There is not much to like about Assange but I do think there are two important issues arising from the whole Wikileaks chaos:
1 How much double-dealing and misleading of their electorate without recourse should governments be allowed to get away with?
2 Should an extradition warrant be granted merely for the purpose of questioning a suspect or only once a suspect has been charged, bearing in mind questioning can take place in a country other than one where the charge is brought?
The EEA warrant is needed for him to be charged, Sweden cannot charge him in the UK. It is dealing with the justice systems of EU countries not just the UK. England is different from Sweden in that someone can be charged ages in advance simply as a means to force them to stay for questioning. In Sweden charging is not done until very very late in the day compared to the UK. The swedish cps have made it clear that he will be facing a court case upon return to sweden. It is Assange's legal team who are claiming he is only wanted for questioning.
And as for the more recent cable leaks, most of this information was already known, and some had even been in newspapers previous to the leaks. besides as far as I am aware I thought wikileaks just uploaded the info on their site, it does not actually retrieve the information itself -does it? Anyone clarify that, does wikileaks hack the info. themselves?
Wikileaks is a conduit for alleged whistleblowers. However, because the information is simply dumped wholesale, anonymously, unqualified and unverified there are big question-marks about how accurate or even relevant a lot of it is. If I was an organisation or individual trying to work a campaign of misinformation to discredit or embarrass someone, I would be very grateful for Wikileaks as a way to get it to a mass market where the idea that 'if it's on the internet it must be true' holds sway.
There is no reason why Assange could not be questioned in the UK by the Swedes. If Swedish law does not allow questioning in other countries, there is no reason why those countries should extradite merely to accommodate some anomaly. Same applies to the question of charging.
For extradition to be fair, (a) the alleged crimes need to be pretty similar in both countries and (b) the same principles need to be applied.
I think European Arrest Warrants should only be applied where charges have been laid; not for a fishing expedition by the prosecutors. The defendant and the court being asked to issue the extradition warrant need some certainty as to what the defendant is being charged with.
The only people claiming Assange is only wanted for just general questioning are his legal team, the Swedish CP have said this is incorrect and he is going to be facing trial in Sweden, not just questioning. His legal team have made masisve mistakes previously such as when they said that the accusations were only about condom use not non-consensual sex. They also claimed he left Sweden before his legal team were told he had to return to the police, this turned out to be not true and his Swedish lawyer had disciplinary action taken against him by the Swedish bar for this mistake.
But in regards to the EEA warrents...
England is unusual in that it charges ages in advance, it is wrong how early charges are made in the UK, and they certainly are used as fishing expeditions. Look at that nurse in Salford, she was charged simply so she could be kept in prison for weeks and questioned with hardly any evidence. Once they realised that they had no evidence they just dropped the charges. The EEA warrents should not just be done to match up to the UK, the EU is not the British empire. Apart from some crimes against children (i.e paying children for sex in Thailand etc you cannot be charged in one country for crimes in another country. Other people have been extradited under the EEA warrents and been charged once they land, and the same happened to people extradited without the EEA. The guy accused of murdering his wife and baby in America, was extradited and charged in the US. The men who murdered Kris Donaldson were extradited from Pakistan and then charged in the UK.
General question: wikileaks was based in sweden, is it still based in Sweden?
The above is a link to a story of a British man accused of being involved in the murder of his Swedish wife in South Africa. He is being extradited, despite the fact no charges have been brought. He will face charges once he lands in the country the crime was committed in. Just as Assange will be charged in Sweden. This is the normal process in an extradition.
It should also be noted that Sweden has one of the best human rights records in the world and comes under the same European court of Justice and the European court of human rights and human rights act as England, South Africa does not.
OK I'm not a criminal lawyer and the niceties may escape me but, as I understand it, Dewani has been arrested while Assange has not. I had assumed Dewani had also been charged but accept that I may be wrong on that.
No Dewani has not been charged, he will only be charged in South Africa. He has not been accused of committing any crime here so cannot be charged here, and whilst foreign police may be given the option of having someone questioned they have no legal powers in foreign countries so cannot arrest or charge people. In extraditions the person extradited is only charged in the country they are extradited to.
The assange case is a very standard cut and dry case, it is only his legal team claiming that it is unusual. But as they got mixed up on what he was accused of, and what swedish law was, they are not really that reliable in my opinion.
The many of the legal aspects of the case were surely a mess but the oddest feature to me was the extradition squabble.
The Swedes (allegedly acting on behalf of the USA) wanted to extradite an Australian national from the UK.
Surely it would be simpler for the UK to put him on a plane back to Australia and then let them argue with the Swedes / Americans and bear all the costs and fuss.
maybe it would be easier, but it would be very unusual. If Assange did not want to go to Australia, Australia would have to extradite him, which is a far more difficult process as it is outside the EU. The fact that he is Australian makes no difference to the ease with which he could be extradited there.
Also the only people who have claimed Sweden is acting on behalf of America is Assange. Yet he had at one time requested refuge there, and wikileaks is still based in Sweden. Also when it comes to extraditing to the US, it is far easier to do it from the UK, as we have stronger ties and extradite people there more frequently. Also now it has been raised as an issue it woudl be nigh on impossibel to extradite him from Sweden to America, so if America want him it is in their ebst interests he stays in the UK. Besides which whatever EU country he was in, it would end up in the same courts if America tried to extradite him i.e ECHR. However America have not tried to extradite him.
I also do not see why the legal aspects of the case are a mess. It is a very standard case aside from the extradition.
Why did the Swedes refuse to question Assange in the UK? Surely it would have moved things forward faster?
Assuming they did - I have been rereading some of the stories and the overall impression is of chaos, both of Assange's representatives but also the Swedish authorities. Certainly Assange's first set of UK lawyers seemed to be all over the shop and incredibly publicity mad. The second lot seemed more sober but maybe their arguments were just as misconceived?
Not only that, his Swedish lawyer told the English court he was only told to go in after he had left. It was proved this was untrue, and the English judge claimed the lawyer had misled the court. On his return to Sweden this lawyer received a disciplinary action from the Swedish bar.
It is odd that no-one minds sending an asian guy to a country with a poor human rights record compared to sweden where the punishment for his alleged crime would be far heavier than here, yet are up in arms about the fact a white guy might have to face charges in a country with one of the best human rights records in the world, and where his sentance would not be long.
I really do not see how England can refuse to send assange to sweden when at the same time Dewani is going to get sent to SA.
Join the discussion
Please login first.