Sit back down, Julian Assange™, you're not going anywhere just yet Head WikiLeaker Julian Assange™'s latest bid to move off Ecuador's couch and back into normal digs has failed: a Swedish court has upheld the arrest warrant against him on allegations of sexual assault. Assange's lawyers filed a petition to withdraw the warrant on Tuesday, in hopes that the WikiLeaks founder could avoid …
<blockquote>After a few years, with that kind of money, a quick helico escape would be easy...</blockquote>
I suppose if traffic control got to know that the flight was to Sweden, then they'd probably A-Ok it, then half way across Europe, change flight plan to Ecuador.
I believe if he flew unannounced, he'd get told to land or be shot down.
Except 'the government' is the people. Londoners in particular in this case. That prick has diverted £6M of front line policing away from the streets of the city where they're much needed.
I'll bet the Ecuadorians are just posturing too - can't imagine they *really* want him... Unless he pays his bill for the central London hotel he's had...
It seems unlikely he's demanding that the police keep watch on him. So rather it's on the police for deciding this is the most productive use of their time. Apparently there is no other crime in London so camping out was as good a use of resources as any. It would be outrageous if there was crime that went unpunished, which is why that never happens. Violate terms of bail or murder 100 people. No difference. Nobody escapes the police. Ever.
"That prick has diverted £6M of front line policing away from the streets of the city "
Not quite. Assange hasn't diverted anything. The Plod, in their infinite wisdom, decided that six million to help the Swedes get anything up to five grand, should the case ever come to court and Assange be found guilty, is a bargain.
Apparently, basic aritmetic is not a requirement for joining the Met.
I wasn't aware that justice in this country was purely an accounting exercise.
The next time you're the victim of a crime I'm sure you'll be delighted that the criminal won't be pursued because the cops can't make a profit.
Bad luck to the victims of a sexual assault. Better hope the attacker has a Ferrari that the police can hopefully sell for a better margin.
"London to Ecuador surely goes via our border somewhere. Couldn't he be picked up there?"
IANAL but I believe diplomatic vehicles, cars and private planes for example, have the same protections at the embassies. Therefore if your embassy has vehicular access and you can arrange to drive straight into a diplomatically badged military transport then no you don't ever cross our border.
I'm guessing the Ecuadorian embassy doesn't have vehicular access so the plod are waiting for him to leave on foot.
Very simple, Vienna Convention Article 27. The host country must permit and protect free communication between the diplomats of the mission and their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be opened even on suspicion of abuse. A diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained.
Make Assange a citizen of Ecuador and give him a package to deliver to Quito - he becomes untouchable.
You're guessing very very badly and your critical thinking is even worse. HTF do they get their people out if they don't have vehicular access?
The truth is, Assange has nowhere to run to even if he COULD leave the compound. The only reason the Ecuadorians are allowing him to stay is some damn fool screwed up when he first entered the compound, so now if they don't keep him they lose diplomatic face.
"HTF do they get their people out if they don't have vehicular access?"
They walk out the front door, cross the pavement ('sidewalk' to our left pond cousins) and hop into the waiting taxi/limo/No 27 bus.
Unfortunately, that pavement is UK soil (well, concrete), and even if he's getting into a diplomatic car, he'd still have to get to it past six million quidsworth of plods.
Although, I don't suppose anyone's considered the old 'escape via ram raid' option? just smash the car into the front door, transfer our Jools and hope the thing is still driveable?
Would at least provide some good footage for the six o'clock bulletin.
HTF? On foot, they aren't all grand gated compounds. The embassy is on the first floor above a solicitors office. Go find it on Streetview, you can see their banner in a couple of the first floor windows. The door is the black one 2'6 wide around the side.
"I doubt he decided to post the officers where they are, so how's he cost Londoner's 6m exactly?"
Well, he's wanted for a couple of sex offences and jumping bail. He could always hand himself in and face the consequences of his actions. It's not like he hasn't noticed the police outside his hiding place.
He definately breached bail as a wilful act, the sex charges he may eventually be cleared of, though that now seems unlikely.
Despite what many of you think, it's very much the job of the police to arrest sex offenders and bail jumpers. Fear that you may be extradited elsewhere does not absolve you of attending court and facing prosecution.
Though we could always make the whole thing more efficient by sealing all but one entry/exit from the embassy and posting a single officer outside the door checking ID.
Except 'the government' is the people. Londoners in particular in this case. That prick has diverted £6M of front line policing away from the streets of the city where they're much needed.
On the upside, they recovered £93,000 of the £140,000 from those who posted bail for him...
"If I could cost a government $16,000 a day by sitting there, I might just do that for life just because. What about you?"
How about if it meant slumming on your mate's couch and refusing to leave and cost your friends a load of money? I wouldn't, because I'd be being a d!ck to my mates.
I also wouldn't, because that money would be better used elsewhere. It's not coming straight from the pockets of the police and government, it's resulting in those police not helping the population by doing their policing elsewhere, where it's needed.
I have no love for Mr. Assange. Regarding my commentary on the merit of spending large sums to keep watch on him my reasoning is two fold. Practically speaking I haven't been able to come up with a scenario where the current response is proportionate -- it seems wasteful. Maybe it's because of my lack of imagination, I grant you that. Second, and more on principle, Lady Justice is supposed to be blindfolded -- treating all before her equally, and merely using her scales to weigh the competing claims. This whole "pound of flesh" and "making an example" business seems much more personal, much less about specific facts and law. More like the kind of "justice" that involves pitchforks and torches and large groups of people. In other words not the kind of "justice" dispensed by Lady Justice. He should definitely have to answer for his alleged crimes, no question. Though it's not unreasonable to consider special circumstances. If he has little chance of a fair trial, or there's a real possibility of him being spirited away outside of the eyes of the law.... We shouldn't ignore this. Having said that, to each his own. I can accept that you may hold a different and equally reasonable assessment of the facts and thus reached a different conclusion. In any case I hope we can both agree he has an ego the size of a planet, is generally a disagreeable person, and we hate the waste of resources. :)
"I have no love for Mr. Assange. Regarding my commentary on the merit of spending large sums to keep watch on him my reasoning is two fold. Practically speaking I haven't been able to come up with a scenario where the current response is proportionate"
Proportionate financially?
Surely that should have no bearing on justice? We shouldn't stop chasing someone just because it gets a bit pricey, do we? What kind of message does that send? Be a rich guy, wave your dick at the law and we'll sidle off and let you get away with it if it becomes a chore to come and get you.
Ok, cost does have a bearing, but it *shouldn't*. And I guess that if we have such a high profile fugitive and we know exactly where he is, it would be a dereliction of police duty to let him wander off. Just how much egg on their faces would the Met have then, especially if upon escape he notched up some further legal complaints.
"Maybe it's because of my lack of imagination, I grant you that."
The legal and court system has to be seen to work. It has to be seen to be effective. If the Courts can be laughed at, we're in a bad place as regards law and order. If high profile figures are seen to be getting away with whatever they like, then us plebs might start thinking we can just abscond when Courts make unfavourable decisions. Granted, the courts *are* laughed at by a section of society, but the vast mass of us have a perception that it works, and it is partly that perception that makes us obey the Courts and respect them. That's why Contempt is a serious matter. The Courts cannot be seen to be letting people ignore them. Without an effective Court system we are no longer a functioning society.
Perhaps more seriously, if being out on bail is seen as something frivolous and more people abscond, then it makes bail harder to get and more expensive for everyone else. That infringes on people's freedoms and is something that I would not want to see happening: If I am undergoing trial, I want to have the opportunity to walk free for the duration, until I am found guilty. So: People who flout bail need to pay severely for it, for all of our sakes.
"He should definitely have to answer for his alleged crimes, no question."
But not until after he's been punished for the crimes that he has committed: Bail jumping and contempt of court. For me, the alleged crimes in another nation which may or may not have occurred are of secondary importance, now. America's issues with him aren't even of any interest to me.
*If he has little chance of a fair trial, or there's a real possibility of him being spirited away outside of the eyes of the law.... We shouldn't ignore this.*
The Judge who authorised the extradition has considered it fully and its been settled in Court. More informed minds than ours have assessed the risk and decided it was negligible (and I concur: We're talking about Sweden here, not the Sudan). Asshatange fought the charges in Court, with expensive lawyers. He had a better crack at avoiding it than you or I would have had, enjoyed a comfortable bail agreement, and when decided he didn't like what our legal system decided (although he would have been the first to claim a victory for justice had it agreed with him), he bravely ran away. (And it's beside the point now, but he ran away not from jail... not even from trial... but from *questioning*).
"In any case I hope we can both agree he has an ego the size of a planet, is generally a disagreeable person, and we hate the waste of resources."
Certainly no disagreement from my quarters on that.
"Proportionate financially?"
Yes. I agree it's not an ideal thing to have to consider money in the pursuit of justice. But it is a reality. Do you think that police and politicians at times set enforcement priorities or resource allocations in such a way that favors enforcement of some laws at the expense of others? Because they do, I promise. :) So in reality we're *always* balancing cost vs. benefit to society. I think what I hear you saying is that even knowing this, you feel like the cost to pursue this individual is acceptable because not doing so would in the final analysis result in more crime as Joe Average becomes a scofflaw. I disagree -- I see zero chance of the sky falling. But I could be horribly wrong and so I respect your opinion nonetheless.
"The legal and court system has to be seen to work."
I agree. Is the system really working if we have piles and piles of money being spent on this one jerk when there are much more serious crimes to pursue? I'm not suggesting that they give up. Register a Red Notice in Interpol. Add him to do-not-fly list. Put a bounty on his head. And then move on.
"But not until after he's been punished for [...] Bail jumping and contempt of court."
Agreed on enforcement priorities.
"The Judge who authorised the extradition has considered it fully [...] More informed minds than ours have assessed the risk [...]"
Possibly, but I sincerely doubt it. Have you ever seen a court decision that was wrong beyond imagination? Have you ever noticed how many decisions are overturned on appeal? Have you ever heard of a judge lacking the skills and knowledge necessary to properly assess the case before them? Judges are just people like you and I. I think it's far more likely the judge in question didn't seriously consider the risks.
In any case, I think we both agree it would be nice to see Mr. Assange face proper justice. Cheers!
"It's almost as if there's something else going on behind the scenes....."
There doesn't need to be. The guy VERY publicly insulted our nation's legal system in a way which citizens or someone with less powerful buddies could never do. When you wave your dick in a Court's face, expect the court to want to make an example and get its pound of flesh.
@Psyx
Yes, that all makes sense - except when you see the world from the pov of the interconnectedness of all things, at which point the way our Government and Opposition insult our Law, every day, day-after-day-after-day, and insult us, and lie to us and steal from us, and are actively trying to enslave us from within the near-future until the end of time, Assange becomes meaningless except for the hypocrisy of the wildly-disproportionate response by our police.
Yes, that all makes sense - except when you see the world from the pov of the interconnectedness of all things, at which point the way our Government and Opposition insult our Law, every day, day-after-day-after-day, and insult us, (etc)
.. which doesn't change the facts concerning Assange one bit. Next time you get a speeding ticket, take it to court and tell the judge how much worse it is that footballers get close to the sound barrier in their expensive cars and see how much that will help your case. Here's a hint: don't bother.
"Yes, that all makes sense - except when you see the world from the pov of the interconnectedness of all things, at which point the way our Government and Opposition insult our Law, every day, day-after-day-after-day, and insult us, and lie to us and steal from us, and are actively trying to enslave us from within the near-future until the end of time, Assange becomes meaningless except for the hypocrisy of the wildly-disproportionate response by our police."
Do you honestly want our Courts and policing to be based around the 'interconnectedness of all things', or the premise that politicians lie so we should be able to ignore the Courts?
Just because the professional lying classes are unpleasant, it doesn't mean that we should let guests in our nation decide what Court decisions they want to abide by.
So, the US aren't the secret powers behind the scenes?
Well why don't the Swedes do their initial interview in London? It doesn't smell of CIA involvement, oh deary me, no.
And Assange would get a fair trial in the US too.
Wow, I got through all that without vomiting! Yay Me
"So, the US aren't the secret powers behind the scenes?"
Probably not at this point. Contempt of Court is pretty serious. The UK authorities probably want to bang him up for that, and that probably trumps any efforts being made by the US.
"Well why don't the Swedes do their initial interview in London?"
Maybe because they're fed up with Assange thumbing his nose at their legal system.
"It doesn't smell of CIA involvement, oh deary me, no."
At this point, no it doesn't. What pressure do you think they are bringing to bear?
As has been explained to the followers of St. Assange a few hundred times:
1) The swedish legal system demands a hearing before arresting him
So by interviewing him in London Sweden wouldn't have changed the problem
2) The Swedish court also wants a blood test / DNA sample
That Assange steadfastly refused. Makes one wonder if he had some health issues
3) Assange is a known fugitive => no longer trustworthy
Skiping bail and leaving his "supporters" with the bill
I still have hopes he gets the maximum possible punishment:
NO extraction to the USA
NO stay in Guantanamo
Just a fair trial, possibly(1) a sentence
Declared "Persona non grata" and deported to Australia
(1) My guess is he had an STD while having unprotected sex. And THAT is a serious offence in many European countries. Would explain all the fuss about the blood/DNA test nicely
My guess is he had an STD while having unprotected sex. And THAT is a serious offence in many European countries. Would explain all the fuss about the blood/DNA test nicely
It's the conclusion I have come to as well, there is really no other explanation that covers both his reluctance to provide a test for the girls as asked (through which -if clear- the Swedish thing could have been prevented from going all the way into a potential rape charge) and his BS about Sweden being a US stooge whilst not including the UK in this, which has much clearer and firmer US ties, all the way up to intelligence collaboration.
Turn it any way you want, what I read in this is that St Jules is not so much afraid of the US as of Sweden, and an STD seems to be the only explanation that fits - it also offers a possible hint at why the girls have changed their approach and why their solicitor is not talking to the press, imagine this STD has been picked up by one or both girls and this is put in front of the court as evidence..
I doubt he'll get one, but it will have nothing to do with the US, the CIA, or any of the other conspiracies theories posted in the past on these pages. I think the whole thing is just one rabid prog eating another one. So if I were at the CIA, even if I wanted to have a conversation with him, I think I'd steer clear of this whole media circus until well after the sex and bail jumping trials are over. Much easier to nab a guy in the middle of the night AFTER he thinks he's made a clean get away.
Surely if the US had wanted his arse they'd have asked for it long before the Swedish extradition case sprang up?
Surely he'd be better off going to Sweden and getting that over and done with and then hope that the Crown Prosecution Service decides that there's no point doing him for breaking his bail conditions?
If he stays where he is for, say, ten years then he'd have been better off facing the music. As it is he's been languishing at the Equadorian government's expense longer (probably) than anyone else would ever sentence him to prison, even if they'd found enough reason to convict him. He's also traded an uncertain likelihood of jail time in Sweden for definitely having committed a crime in the UK.
Ten years trapped in one building with internet access is a whole lot better than prison, which has no internet access and is full of violent criminals.
I doubt the US would extradite. Too much diplomatic awkwardness, plus it just reenforces the martyrdom issue. No, they'd just lean harder on Sweden to do whatever it takes to get a conviction and a harsh sentence. Serving time as a rapist is a good way to get a reputation tainted.
"Surely if the US had wanted his arse they'd have asked for it long before the Swedish extradition case sprang up?"
Yup, maybe, say, when he was first arrested in the UK.
I see he's still claiming not to be leaving the embassy even if the Swedes drop their charges as he's still scared of the US.
Still claiming also that the US will find it easier to extradite from Sweden, even though to do so would require permission from the UK *and* Sweden. Extraditing from here would have just required the UK's permission.
"Extraditing from here would have just required the UK's permission."
Nope. He's from the CounterWeight Continent, see, and there's this usually-convenient-but-not-in-this-case thing called "Commonwealth"; means that Australia has veto right on the extradition -from the UK. But not from Sweden, as Sweden is not bound to Commonwealth rules.
I also find it a bit odd that extradition was granted without any charge being filed. That's highly unusual, and indeed it opens the way for the "oh, our bad, we won't charge you here in Sweden that was all a sorry mistake. But since you're here would you please board that NSA plane, pretty please with waterboarding on top?" strategy he's suspecting. I say, extradition without charges should not be granted. Then you see if the charges stick.
"Failing to understand Swedish legal process I see?"
The legal process in Sweden is what it is. If they want an interview with a judge before filing charges, fine. Deporting someone -especially a non-national- so that they can have it, is entirely different. It engages more than just Sweden. Even the US had to charge McKinnon to try and get him out of the UK (without presenting evidence, but that's another problem; they still charged him).
Sweden can have the legal process they want. It doesn't mean that the other countries should go out of their way, trample international rules and possibly Human Rights to accomodate it. If the Sweden legal system insists that you must deport a foreign citizen without charges (for a possible offence that carries a max penalty _lower_ than what you'd risk if you were seriously speeding on a highway), then perhaps they need to slightly alter their legal process and allow the initial interview to be carried out abroad.
It doesn't trample any international rules. All these alignment issues between slightly differing judicial systems are thrashed out during extradition and cross border policing treaties. Just coz you and Asshat don't like them doesn't mean they aren't binding and legal up until the exact moment the ECHR rules against them - which they haven't in this case.....
That's highly unusual, and indeed it opens the way for...
1) It's not unusual. In Swedish law, you get charged in Sweden, not in the UK
2) Sweden is irrelevant, he's on the run for breach of bail, he's going to a nice prison in Kent as soon as he comes out of the embassy.
3) It's all irrelevant, because you twist your conspiracy theories to suit any contingency. Literally anything you could consider unusual or "opens the door for".
"1) It's not unusual. In Swedish law, you get charged in Sweden, not in the UK"
He's currently not charged for anything anywhere. Extradition without charge is incredibly uncommon, actually a cursory check failed to bring up any precedent -appart of course for the infamous "extraordinary rendition" process - so it may well be a world first.
"Sweden is irrelevant, he's on the run for breach of bail, he's going to a nice prison in Kent as soon as he comes out of the embassy"
But did't he breach bail to avoid deportation? (I'll help you, the answer to this one is "yes". He was comfy in a mansion belonging to one of his friends, why would he leave it?). Your circular reasonning is not going to help you
" It's all irrelevant, because you twist your conspiracy theories to suit any contingency. Literally anything you could consider unusual or "opens the door for"."
Not twisting anything. If he is charged (in Sweden or anywhere else) he'll undergo trial there before anything else happens (extradition to the US for example). I he goes to Sweden and is not charged, he can be deported to the US right away. So making him come over to Sweden without charge litterally "opens the way" to its immediate extradition to the US. That is how it works. It does not, however, "open the door" to the end of the world, as your fiendish misquotation tries to infer I meant.
"But did't he breach bail to avoid deportation"
Erm, yes, and his bail bond was set in order that he could appeal the extradition order. He did that, and lost, and so threw his toys out of the pram. Who's using circular reasoning?? He was bailed pending the outcome of the court hearing - that's been heard, he lost.
"Extradition without charge is incredibly uncommon"
In Sweden, he can't be charged without being arrested.
" I he goes to Sweden and is not charged, he can be deported to the US right away."
Yet again, he can be extradited from here to the US if so desired. He also can't be deported to the US "right away". For the Swedes to extradite him onwards to the US, they must first get the same permissions from the UK as if he were here, so again the question, why on earth would "they" need to do it via Sweden when all the same legal hurdles are in place plus Sweden's?
The New Statesman sums it up rather well if you feel like reading the debunking in full:
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
"For the Swedes to extradite him onwards to the US, they must first get the same permissions from the UK as if he were here, so again the question, why on earth would "they" need to do it via Sweden when all the same legal hurdles are in place plus Sweden's?"
To deport him from the UK you'd need Australia's permission. He's a Commonwealth citizen, you see.
From Sweden you just need the UK (good lapdog) and Sweden of course (the very country that serves as a NSA foothold for EU surveillance... what are the chances of them saying no?).
"From Sweden you just need the UK (good lapdog) and Sweden of course (the very country that serves as a NSA foothold for EU surveillance... what are the chances of them saying no?)."
From Sweden, you just need the UK plus any original conditions they would have to meet including Australia.
But all of this is moot, given Assange has already stated that even if Sweden drop the warrant, he wouldn't leave the embassy. So he (and the faithful followers who believe he can do no wrong and even it he did wrong shouldn't have to face it) is arguing over something that he's already said wouldn't matter.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
