Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[Drummond]

Reminds me of a old episode of StarTrek (from where, surely all wisdom comes)... the "whim" here would be the of revocation of diplomatic immunity, not (as you imply) the granting of asylum.

And is this 'whim' taken further ?

Do you perhaps consider that it's mere 'whim' for the British authorities to take notice of Sweden, when it says it wants Assange to be answerable to its courts ??

[Noir]

And is this 'whim' taken further ?

Do you perhaps consider that it's mere 'whim' for the British authorities to take notice of Sweden, when it says it wants Assange to be answerable to its courts ??

They don't want him to be answerable to the courts, he has not been charged with anything, they just want to 'chat', and this 'chat' has to take place in Sweden. And it is known that Swedish and Americans have already discussed extradition when he arrives.

For some reason the Swedish authorities do not want to 'chat' via a video link, or internationally natural soil, which they have done before in other cases. Funny that.

[Drummond]

My mum just thinks they played the Embassy card too soon, should of waited to see how things were playing out with the ECHR, who (she thinks) will find in his favour. Though in saying that she also thought (from a legal standpoint) the UK courts would find in his favour, and they didn't.

Also its worth mentioning (since i've seen him be refered to as a rapist etc) not only has he not been found guilty, but he has not even been charged with any offence. Though no doubt the people that wana call him a rapist won't care for little details like evidence, convictions, or charges.

Evidence. Convictions. Charges.

Well, why not let all of this play out, to see where it leads, INSTEAD of having Assange shielded from any likelihood of real culpability ?

Why does your mum want the European Court of 'Human Rights' to get their chance at this ? Is it because they're notoriously soft ??

Here's an example of an article considering what they get up to ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-country.html

Official figures show that the European Court of Human Rights has thwarted more planned deportations by Britain than any other country.

The controversial “Rule 39” procedure was recently used by judges in Strasbourg to prevent Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric, being sent back to Jordan in case evidence obtained under torture was used against him.

It has also been used by Somali criminals and failed Tamil asylum seekers to remain in the country.

The new figures disclosed in Parliament have renewed calls for the Government to pull out of the court and so ensure that British court rulings are upheld.

Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford who obtained the statistics, told The Daily Telegraph: “These figures confirm to me that we need to urgently review our membership of the ECHR.

“This court should not operate as a convenient mechanism to prevent us removing undesirable people from the UK.”

Under the Rule 39 powers of the European Court of Human Rights, judges can issue interim measures that are binding on nation states if they believe the applicant “faces a real risk of serious, irreversible harm if the measure is not applied”.

This prevents deportation going ahead until the case can be heard in detail.

The court insists it is “not an appeal tribunal from domestic tribunals”, and that people fighting extradition and expulsion should pursue all available means locally before turning to Strasbourg.

But figures show that thousands of applications are being made each year in the 47 nations that make up the Council of Europe, which oversees the court.

Looks somehow familiar, doesn't it ? What does that remind you of ?

[Noir]

Evidence. Convictions. Charges.

Well, why not let all of this play out, to see where it leads, INSTEAD of having Assange shielded from any likelihood of real culpability ?

How things would play out -
Day One: Julian lands in Sweden
Day Two: Julian extradited to America
Pretend otherwise and you're either lying, or an idiot.

Why does your mum want the European Court of 'Human Rights' to get their chance at this ? Is it because they're notoriously soft ??

She doesn't "want" it to go to the ECHR, nor does she not want it to. She was just explaining to me what she thinks are options and chances are.

[Drummond]

They don't want him to be answerable to the courts, he has not been charged with anything, they just want to 'chat', and this 'chat' has to take place in Sweden. And it is known that Swedish and Americans have already discussed extradition when he arrives.

For some reason the Swedish authorities do not want to 'chat' via a video link, or internationally natural soil, which they have done before in other cases. Funny that.

Oh, really.

Well, what we NOW have is Ecuador shielding Assange from culpability for ANYTHING at ALL. And what led to this state of affairs ?

Previously, Assange had used our courts to fight extradition. But, our courts didn't find in favour of Assange.

So, instead, he's hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy. As someone determined not to be answerable to due process.

Care to explain to me why our courts didn't see things Assange's way ?

[Drummond]

How things would play out -
Day One: Julian lands in Sweden
Day Two: Julian extradited to America
Pretend otherwise and you're either lying, or an idiot.

Your 'day two' conclusion isn't certain by any means.

But, so what, even if it was ? In case you somehow missed it, Assange DOES have a case to answer for in America. That he should be extradited there is no less than eminently reasonable.

She doesn't "want" it to go to the ECHR, nor does she not want it to. She was just explaining to me what she thinks are options and chances are.

The ECHR is a well-known cop-out option. We all know that.

[jimnyc]

Don't the US and UK have an extradition treaty agreement? If the USA had the power to do such things, why not have the UK just extradite him now and bypass the rest and add more to the drama. And the less hands involved make it easier, and we're closer with the UK than any other ally.

[Noir]

Don't the US and UK have an extradition treaty agreement? If the USA had the power to do such things, why not have the UK just extradite him now and bypass the rest and add more to the drama. And the less hands involved make it easier, and we're closer with the UK than any other ally.

The British process of Judicial Review would offer Julian a much better defence than any equivalent in Sweden. If the US where to try to extradite him from the UK, you can all but guarantee a decade or more of debate and case review in the UK, on whether or not he should be. And at the end of all that the US may not get their man at all.

[jimnyc]

The British process of Judicial Review would offer Julian a much better defence than any equivalent in Sweden. If the US where to try to extradite him from the UK, you can all but guarantee a decade or more of debate and case review in the UK, on whether or not he should be. And at the end of all that the US may not get their man at all.

How long did it take Assange to do this to fight extradition to Sweden? And didn't he appeal each decision all the way the the SC as well? They wouldn't be arguing the case at hand, but whether or not they should extradite. Why would it take a fairly short time like it did with Sweden, but be a decade if it was America asking for extradition? And considering that almost everyone I know agrees that Sweden has offered very little for their case, and the UK granted extradition, why would you think the US would have a harder chance and perhaps lose these hearings?

[Noir]

How long did it take Assange to do this to fight extradition to Sweden? And didn't he appeal each decision all the way the the SC as well? They wouldn't be arguing the case at hand, but whether or not they should extradite. Why would it take a fairly short time like it did with Sweden, but be a decade if it was America asking for extradition? And considering that almost everyone I know agrees that Sweden has offered very little for their case, and the UK granted extradition, why would you think the US would have a harder chance and perhaps lose these hearings?

Because the grounds for extradition are much more complex to america (on some sort of treason charge) from the UK. Whereas its much more simple for extradition to Sweden to 'chat' with a prosecutor from the UK. So its easier to get him UK -> Sweden -> America, even though it looks more complex by a 'there's an extra country involved' view.

[Drummond]

Though I really hate to say it, Noir does have a point. There's been all kinds of controversy about our extradition arrangements .. our LibDems have kicked up a fuss about them in the past.

This link should prove instructive (if a little over-long, unfortunately).

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../644/64403.htm

One major concern on this side of the Pond (though I struggle to see how it'd apply to Assange) has been the death penalty. UK law is clear on this ... if there's judged to be any likelihood of an extradited person being judged in an American court and liable to receive such a penalty, this raises an automatic bar to extradition .. UK law doesn't allow for death penalties, not only from within its own courts, but it also legally refuses to recognise the legitimacy of them elsewhere .. so .. any likelihood at all of a death penalty being meted out disqualifies the extradition process.

Swedish law and UK law are actually more similar .. and this is to be expected, as we have EU legislation in common, with human rights legislation applied to both the UK and Sweden originating from the EU.

[jimnyc]

Because the grounds for extradition are much more complex to america (on some sort of treason charge) from the UK. Whereas its much more simple for extradition to Sweden to 'chat' with a prosecutor from the UK. So its easier to get him UK -> Sweden -> America, even though it looks more complex by a 'there's an extra country involved' view.

I suppose I would have to read both treaties, if they aren't too lengthy. I would have assumed if something was good enough to be extradited to one country, it would more or less be the same for another. But I suppose both treaties are worded differently, probably much differently. If I have time later I will look for prior examples of extraditions and see what had to be done to make it happen and how long the process was. That might be a waste though as I believe this is one hell of a unique case. Regardless, I do believe it "should" be easy easy as showing that Assange will get a fair trial. And if memory serves me correct, the pressure will be on his lawyers to prove this cannot happen, and even with the politics behind this, I don't see them proving this very easily. They certainly have probable cause and a history of fair trials given to even the worst of criminals. I think they would have a tough time proving this to courts that were already shown easily swayed with the Swedish case. I know you can't compare the 2 directly, but it does give a little insight.

[jimnyc]

Though I really hate to say it, Noir does have a point. There's been all kinds of controversy about our extradition arrangements .. our LibDems have kicked up a fuss about them in the past.

This link should prove instructive (if a little over-long, unfortunately).

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../644/64403.htm

One major concern on this side of the Pond (though I struggle to see how it'd apply to Assange) has been the death penalty. UK law is clear on this ... if there's judged to be any likelihood of an extradited person being judged in an American court and liable to receive such a penalty, this raises an automatic bar to extradition .. UK law doesn't allow for death penalties, not only from within its own courts, but it also legally refuses to recognise the legitimacy of them elsewhere .. so .. any likelihood at all of a death penalty being meted out disqualifies the extradition process.

Swedish law and UK law are actually more similar .. and this is to be expected, as we have EU legislation in common, with human rights legislation applied to both the UK and Sweden originating from the EU.

I honestly didn't see this a few minutes ago, sweet! I'll go over it tonight. Thanks for the find. Thanks to both for the info actually!