Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Trump is not popular in Sweden (to put it mildly). Telling him to go pound sand would probably play very well with the internal politics. Plus, there is precedence; the current government stood up to Saudi Arabia and told them to sod off when they demanded an apology for our foreign minister calling them a dictatorship.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Trump is not popular in Sweden (to put it mildly). Telling him to go pound sand would probably play very well with the internal politics. Plus, there is precedence; the current government stood up to Saudi Arabia and told them to sod off when they demanded an apology for our foreign minister calling them a dictatorship.

That may be so, but the Swedish government is irrelevant now that they're dropping the investigation.

Can you say the same about Theresa May's government? I doubt it. Theresa May can't afford to take a risk on her relations with the Trump administration with a General Election next month and 2 years of Brexit negotiations. We need Trump on our side, so if he asks for an extradition, May will grant it.

A fair point, but Assange put himself in that hole.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.

The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.

Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.

This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's dangerously close to what Assange has been doing since day one.

Attack the victims, attack the victims, attack the victims.
Two women came forward to accuse him and the initial reason was to get the police to force him to take a test for STDs, as both women had a similar story regarding condoms/being boozed up with him.
He's since claimed that one of the women was sexually active and that the other was a boozehound.

Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.

So you know this much about the Swedish government, but not that Sweden can't promise the outcome of a judicial hearing?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking

That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.

More ridiculous matters regarding extradition have occured.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/649964/Islamic-terrorists-not-extradited-Britain-fears-might-tortured

See above statements.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.

The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.

Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.

Actually, in cases pertaining to extradition to non-EU countries the government has the final say. The same issue remains, however: the government cannot promise the outcome of an investigation prior to having considered the case, and they cannot consider the case because there has been no extradition request from the United States. The issue still comes down to Assange demanding that due process be flubbed in his favour because he doesn't trust due process. It's a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.

If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.

Yet his stay in the embassy is completely voluntary. Also why in God's name would you rule out extradition without a case about it, who knows what kind of evidence might be presented to successfully argue for extradition. Not that it matters anyway, because Chelsea Manning is free so he will already go to the US himself right?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.

And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.

Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.

Ah so please tell me why you think its complete fabrication. Have you been allowed to review the evidence the Swedish police has? No, so you're just going off what you hear in the media? So until you can prove to me you have an inside connection with access to the evidence its still douchey as feth. Victims of false rape accusations? You know how rare those are?

Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.

1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).

Answering for myself:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Yes.

I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.

Considering that in the UK we seem to turn a blind eye to electoral fraud these days, dropping the bail charges against Assange wouldn't be that big a deal.

My taxes are getting wasted on police officers standing outside that damn embassy

If I were British PM, I'd stick him on the first plane to Ecuador and save the nation the hassle.

If the Yanks want him, then they can take it up with the Ecuadorians.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.

1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).

Answering for myself:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Yes.

I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.

And I think it's ridiculous to assume that he would have faced some kind of serious trial here in the US on espionage. The publishing/receipt of classified material likely would have been the charges he would have faced.

And considering that Chelsea Manning, the person who sent in a large amount of the material that WikiLeaks published, is a free woman now?
I think it's plain moronic to assume that there was some shadowy governmental plots afoot to discredit him.

He's done a bang-up job of that himself, what with him being the one(according to WikiLeaks staffers) insisting that things be titled like "Collateral Murder" or promising some kind of huge revelations during the run-up to the 2016 elections and the material effectively being...things that were already seen, just repackaged.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Actually, in cases pertaining to extradition to non-EU countries the government has the final say. The same issue remains, however: the government cannot promise the outcome of an investigation prior to having considered the case, and they cannot consider the case because there has been no extradition request from the United States. The issue still comes down to Assange demanding that due process be flubbed in his favour because he doesn't trust due process. It's a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance.

It's a wonderful way to get people in his favor though.

It lets him seem like he's being completely reasonable while in truth, he's just trying to get around the laws.

Answer the 3 questions please.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Yeah, no. I'm not going to answer anything.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in ridiculously nebulous nefarious schemes.
The whole reason why this story became such a big deal as well is because he's been pushing that narrative since the outset of these charges.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Nope.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.

Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Nope.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.

Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.

That wouldn't be a well considered or thoughtful way to take that; essentially you are saying "he won't play my game on the internet therefor I win", which isn't a very sound position.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Nope.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.

Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.

You can think whatever you want.
At the end of the day, my thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with the case being discussed here.

This whole thing has been a farce since day one. And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Answer the 3 questions please.

Nope.

The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.

Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.

That wouldn't be a well considered or thoughtful way to take that; essentially you are saying "he won't play my game on the internet therefor I win", which isn't a very sound position.

No, I'm asking him to set out his position on 3 key points, and he's flatly refusing to do so. So what else can I do but make an assumption?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So what else can I do but make an assumption?

Not make an assumption?

 Kanluwen wrote:
. And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.

And I find it rather telling that you keep side stepping my question.

Are you or are you not in favour of extraditing Assange to the USA?

If you think this case is only about the sexual assault accusations then you're a fool. This has been a politicised case from the very beginning, because of who Assange is and the organisation he is involved with. The UK government wouldn't have invested millions in a Police operation if this were a mere sexual assault case.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
. And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.

And I find it rather telling that you keep side stepping my question.

Are you or are you not in favour of extraditing Assange to the USA?

What does that have to do with the sexual assault charges?

I don't care about him being extradited. I can't see any way, shape, or form of a fair trial coming out of this after as long as this has been going on.

If you think this case is only about the sexual assault accusations then you're a fool. This has been a politicised case from the very beginning, because of who Assange is and the organisation he is involved with. The UK government wouldn't have invested millions in a Police operation if this were a mere sexual assault case.

Once again:
This was politicized from the very beginning because Assange made it be. When the allegations initially surfaced, he immediately tried to tie it to intelligence agencies hiring the women in question (one of which was a volunteer for WikiLeaks) and make it a question of the plucky hero versus the evil shadow government conspiracies.

If this is not a politicised case, and Assange is making it all up about the USA and UK wanting to extradite him, then how do you explain the multi-million pound Policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside? Why would so many resources be expended on a mere sexual assault case?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If this is not a politicised case, and Assange is making it all up about the USA and UK wanting to extradite him, then how do you explain the multi-million pound Policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside? Why would so many resources be expended on a mere sexual assault case?

Did Assange secure a bail bond after having turned himself over to the Metropolitan Police?
Yes.

He broke that bond when he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy.


So not only is it a "mere sexual assault case"(and even that is debatable, as someone knowingly engaging in sex while having a STD is a HUGE deal and in some countries can actually result in additional charges if part of a sexual assault case--and in charges in general if not disclosing it to your partners) but it also becomes breaking the conditions of bail/bond and more.

I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.

I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.

Do you not read the news?

The cost of the operation, which began in June 2012, has reached about £10m, according to figures published last week.

The Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, told LBC radio on Tuesday: “We won’t talk about tactics, but we are reviewing what options we have. It is sucking our resources.”

Assange walked into the embassy on 19 June, 2012, in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex assault and rape accusations, which he denies.

He has said he fears he will be extradited to the US to face charges relating to WikiLeaks’ publishing activities.

In August 2013, Ecuador granted him political asylum but the police are stationed outside the South Kensington building to arrest him if he leaves the building.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/10/julian-assange-guard-london-police-10m-bill-ecuadorian-embassy

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.

Do you not read the news?

Do you have anything more recent?

The cost of the operation, which began in June 2012, has reached about £10m, according to figures published last week.

The Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, told LBC radio on Tuesday: “We won’t talk about tactics, but we are reviewing what options we have. It is sucking our resources.”

Assange walked into the embassy on 19 June, 2012, in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex assault and rape accusations, which he denies.

He has said he fears he will be extradited to the US to face charges relating to WikiLeaks’ publishing activities.

In August 2013, Ecuador granted him political asylum but the police are stationed outside the South Kensington building to arrest him if he leaves the building.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/10/julian-assange-guard-london-police-10m-bill-ecuadorian-embassy

So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.

That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.

1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).

Answering for myself:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Yes.

I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.

My view.
Yes. If the Swedish can prove to a UK judge who has experience in extradition cases that the charges pr evidence is compelling enough to warrant it.
Let the experts decide.

No. Much as the guy is a ass. The charges are pretty shakey lets be honest.

Yes and no... I mean easier as in if in jail we can control him and know where he is, and have power over him.
In embassy's we can say whatever but not touch him.

However I believe the Swedish case has stronger grounds to warrant the extradition over US.

It's worth mentioning that in 2011, a UK judge did find the charges were compelling enough to extradite Assange to Sweden.

That's when he went walkabout.

I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc

We even have people wanted for murder on the run.

Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.

And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.

I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!

Wait...he's Australian?!!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Wait...he's Australian?!!

Yes...? He certainly isn't an American (which makes it hilarious when all the right wing US pundits were labelling him as a traitor ).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Wait...he's Australian?!!

What other country on God's earth could come up with a haircut like that?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc

We even have people wanted for murder on the run.

Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.

And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.

I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!

And I think that you need to reread what was posted.

Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc

We even have people wanted for murder on the run.

Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.

And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.

I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!

And I think that you need to reread what was posted.

Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.

Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.

"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".

At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.