Assange - foreign office threaten to arrest him

[Empusa]

Article here

They are talking about revoking the Ecuadorian embassy's diplomatic immunity in order to enter the embassy.

Wonder if they will actually do so?

Again from the BBC:

The European Court of Human Rights would not allow an extradition to a country where someone faces capital punishment. Nations that are signatories to the 1951 Convention on Refugees are obliged to consider whether there is a real risk the person could be killed or seriously injured if they were handed over to another authority.

The 'merits' of the Swedish allegations are that two women have stated that he had non-consensual sex with them and the Swedish Director of Prosecution has reason to believe that a crime was committed and the classification of that crime is rape.

I believe that Sweden is progressing exactly as they would with any Joe Bloggs who has questions to answer but who declined to return to Sweden to answer those questions.

Sorry Ennis - I don't mean to suggest that any allegation of rape should not be taken seriously but my understanding was that Sweden had had their change to prosecute and not taken it so was asking if there was any merit (sorry if that word is offending you) to the suggestion that the allegation is being used to get him back to Sweden. Clearly you believe not, thank you.

The UK Govt has extradited people to territories where they have been killed on return (M v the Home Office) - it happens unfortunately, 1951 Convention notwithstanding.

If the US wanted to extradite him then surely they would started that process and he'd have been there easily enough from the UK long before he snuck off into the Ecuador embassy. It's not as if the UK courts have a problem sending folks to face justice in the US courts.

It's interesting how others view this. My American friends see this as a victory for free speech, rather than actually what it is, him being questioned for rape, although thought he was charged?

No, they questioned him once (but not under arrest), after which they re-opened the rape case and upgraded the molestation case to sexual coercion and sexual molestation. They then had to go to their court and get an arrest warrant, and possibly gather other evidence (no idea what - witness statements from other wikileaks employees, maybe), by which time (around 2-3 months) he was back in London. Originally, Assange turned himself in to London police. There was then a long period of extradition hearings.

I assume the Swedish police expected him to return to Sweden when the warrant was issued, but as he did not want to go voluntarily, extradition hearings were required.

Sarah, I didn't find the word merit offensive, I just wasn't sure it was the right one but couldn't think of an alternative. Strength of the case, maybe? (have had a bit more time to think now!)

Novack, the US may well put in an extradition request in due course - perhaps the Swedish one must play out first, I don't know. Just because some states of the US have the death penalty, and Assange has pissed some people off, doesn't mean there is no case for Wikileaks to answer regarding putting troops in danger etc (I don't know about the strength of any US case either).

I would be really surprised if any US conviction did end in the death penalty, from a "PR" angle if nothing else.

Eldritch - could the US extradite on non-capital charges and then lay a capital charge once he is on US soil?

The diplomatic storm would be enormous, and practically, would halt extraditions from ECHR countries indefinitely. I really really can't see it happening. And the no death penalty promise has been adhered to in other more emotive cases: remember the French/Spanish man extradited on charges of killing a young girl in the US? He could not get the death penalty and the US authorities stuck to that, despite he anger of her relatives and others.

Exactly, ilovemy. Unless you like conspiracy theories, the two potential charges are entirely separate matters.

Diplomatic storm is a better phrase than "PR"

No problem - it's easy (for me anyway) to say the wrong thing, wanted to be sure I hadn't offended.

Yes fair point on diplomacy. I tend to forget about that and think only of the legal position!

If there was a case to answer re wikileaks then the FBI could easily have taken control of the domain name and shut it down. All the US extradition talk is just red herring nonsense by him to avoid facing up to his case in Sweden.

The NY Times is reporting he has been accused of 'sexual deviancy' which is so outrageous.

There are safeguards in place so he would not be extradited to the US if the death penalty was in issue, or even if he would be waiting a long time for a trial. One of his barristers, helena Kennedy QC, a leading Human Rights lawyer surely explained this to him?

I happen to believe forcing people to have sex with you against their will or when they aren't in a position to consent is pretty deviant, actually.

This NY Times article talks about sexaul assault accusations:

www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Radio 4 stated that Swedish prosecutors/police have previously travelled overseas to interview suspects in similar situations. Not sure why they refused in this case or to what extent that has tipped Ecuador's hand.

Assange's mother has apparently stated that the US extradtion is only possible if he is first extradited to Ecuador - I have no idea why that would be the case, does not sound right to me.

Why would Ecuador risk their preferential trade agreements with the US if they did not really believe this is the right thing to do?

I'm getting confused: can someone help with the status of the Swedish case?

Has he been charged? Or do the Swedish authorities still want to question him? (And if for questioning, why could it not been done here, with extradition following only if he is charged?)

Is it correct that the Swedish allegations are for a sexual offence which does not exist in UK? (Not using a condom as requested).

Everything I've read (BBC/NYT/Reuters etc) suggests no charges laid - just questionning and an arrest warrant.

It does not matter if the accusation is an offense in the UK or not as the offense took place in Sweden and then he fled the country.

I know it makes no difference to the extradition request whether it is an offence in UK. I simply want to know what it is - which may require a wordier description if indeed there is no such offence in UK.

If he has not been charged, then is extradition the normal procedure? I though police often travelled to interview suspects oversees and extradition followed charges. Or is the Swedish procedure not the same?

It's a European arrest warrant. He should have been arrested and sent there on the first flight as soon as it was issued. If he felt that was wrong he could have tried to weasel his way out in a Swedish Court

"All the US extradition talk is just red herring nonsense by him to avoid facing up to his case in Sweden."

^ This.

Could Sweden not diffuse this by stating that they will not allow Assange to be deported onwards to the USA?

That would then undermine his whole argument in one fell swoop.

The bottom line is he is not saying he won't answer charges in Sweden but it's the US he fears. And I can't say I blame him.

The US has not asked for extradition!!!!

Niceguy, how could Sweden make that categorical statement? The US hasn't yet made an extradition request . They may or may not be building a case to do so. Building such a case might take months or years, as it is an "information" cAse (do not know the timescales but know fraud cases etc can take a long time to build). How could Sweden pre-deny an extradition request that hasnt been made, on a case that hasn't been stated, relating to someone not even in their country right now. They ate signed up to the ECHR wrt the death penalty.

It is possible that there IS a reasonable case for prosecuting Assange in the US. Why should he be above the law if there is, when Joe Bloggs wouldn't be? Equally, they may never make a case as it may be too complex or the ultimate responsibility for any crime might rest on another employee. No-one knows right now.

I didn't know Ecuador had preferential trade agreements with the US, on what kind of things (genuine question!)

Dh was telling me about a bloke in the same situation years ago who spent 15 years living in an embassy.