Assange & Extradition question

hardwood

Hi, could anyone tell me why Julian Assange would be more worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US than UK to US? Surely, given the UK's history (eg Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer) he would far more likely to be extradited from the UK to US?

godtabh

Possibly that the UK wont extradite if there is a possibility of a death sentence?

BornToKill

hardwood wrote: »

Hi, could anyone tell me why Julian Assange would be more worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US than UK to US? Surely, given the UK's history (eg Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer) he would far more likely to be extradited from the UK to US?

Hasn't he spent the last couple of months in the Equadorian embassy having claimed asylum? Hardly the action of someone who is unconcerned at the prospect of extradition from the UK, I would have thought.

Ken.

America hasn't asked for him to be extradited (yet). His fear is that if he goes to Sweden then America will ask them to extradite him. I read at the time it would be easier for the Americans to get Sweden to extradite him than it would be to get England to extradite him.

hardwood

BornToKill wrote: »

Hasn't he spent the last couple of months in the Equadorian embassy having claimed asylum? Hardly the action of someone who is unconcerned at the prospect of extradition from the UK, I would have thought.

He went to the embassy after his appeal against extradition to Sweden failed and stated at the time it was fear of being extradited from Sweden that prompted him to appeal for political asylum.

krd

BornToKill wrote: »

Hasn't he spent the last couple of months in the Equadorian embassy having claimed asylum? Hardly the action of someone who is unconcerned at the prospect of extradition from the UK, I would have thought.

Well, so far he has lost all his appeals. I think he had one last one left.

If he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy he'll be arrested straight away put in prison. And then he'll have a few days and then they'll shuttle him off to Sweden. He's also looking at jail in Sweden - that's while he's awaiting trial. If there is one.

But what he is most worried about, is a secret indictment from the US. That is he arrives in Sweden, and the rabbit is pulled out of the hat, and he's bundled on a flight to the US. Where he'll face a fair trial, followed by a first rate hanging.

The US situation is particularly bad. It's no exaggeration that they could fly him to Guantanamo and torture him. Under the Patriot act he might find himself with little or no legal rights.

If he gets to Sweden, and there isn't a trial. He may be still in trouble - the UK may refuse to re-admit him, and the Swedish may want to deport him, to somewhere. If he's lucky he'll end up in Australia.

RATM

He is fast running out of options thats for sure.

The whole rape charges in Sweden thing sounds like a classic honeytrap to me , although I haven't read deeply into the case, I'm just a bit suss about it. He's not exactly Brad Pitt so for him to pull not one but two Swedish chicks for a threesome sounds like a bit of a tall tale. Also the fact there are two of them negates the her word against his word scenario. I'd be keen to hear what evidence the Swidish prosecutors have on him, like if they have a semen sample then maybe he did do it but otherwise it does sound like a classic CIA honeytrap- Mossad did the exact same thing with that former nuclear scientist who defected and started giving details of the Israeli nuclear program.

It also seems a bit bizarre that he is depending on Ecuador for asylum . Even if they did grant it and he moved to Quito the US Government could easily turn the screw on the government there to hand him over. A simple thing like threatening to end a trade agreement or 'aid' they give to Ecuador could see him landed in the US.

If he does end up getting extradited then I don't think he will ever be executed - it would be bad PR for Washington to execute such a high profile figure. But they would have him in prison for the rest of his life pretty much and the Australians wouldn't do a thing to help him, he has already burnt his bridges with the Australian governement by publishing their secret documents.

I hope he gets away with the whole thing, we need organisations like Wikileaks to inform us what our governments get up to in secret under our names and using our taxes. That is why the US are so scared of him and want him gagged. Without his actions we would never have had details about the truth behind the murder of the Reuters journalists or the death squads the the Americans send into Afghanistani villages at night who literally murder every single person there. They have shameful conduct in their wars and it is only right that these crimes get exposed in my opinion.

Procrastastudy

He has links with Ecuador - I think it was any port in the storm!

Rascasse

Looks like things have gotten interesting for Assange.

Yesterday the Grauniad said that the Ecuadorian government had decided to grant political asylum. No Great surprise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-wikileaks?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Today/tonight the BBC (amongst others) said the British gov could revoke the embassies diplomatic status and then enter it to arrest him.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

Now PA says a number of police officers have been seen to enter the embassy.
Source: Twitter (photos and live video including http://bambuser.com/v/2905015).

Very serious if the UK have entered the embassy to arrest him without the agreement of the Ecuadorian government.

Just to make sure this is within the purview of the Legal Discussion forum; the issue at stake is article 22 of the Vienna Convention.

Rascasse

Looks like tonight was a false alarm, though nice of the FCO to make a visit at midnight.

Maybe some legal heads here can give their opinion on the FCO's threat to revoke the embassies diplomatic status. The relevent law (as I see it) is in bold below. Surely the Vienna convention trumps this. If not, surely the UK doesn't want to set a precedent whereby a country can walk in and arrest someone seeking safety in a UK embassy.

From the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

(3) In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—

(a)a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or

(b)the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,

it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

(4)The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law.

percy_stover

Are you guys serious? Why wouldn't US ask for extradition from their ally GB who after 9/11 have approved of everything US asked for in the war on terrorism?

Furthermore, have you any idea of how the legal system works in Sweden. If I were Assange, I would be far more afraid of staying in GB then going to Sweden who is known for the least corrupt legal system in the world. The only thing it can be accused of is softness.

Assange is either delusional or guilty of rape.

blubloblu

Under the European Arrest Warrant framework, the UK has to give consent to any further extradition from Sweden, which is unlikely due to threat of death penalty etc. Assange then has 45 days where he cannot have any new charges brought against him. Now that he has Ecuadorian asylum he could fly there after the Swedish trial (assuming he isn't convicted)

krd

percy_stover wrote: »

Are you guys serious? Why wouldn't US ask for extradition from their ally GB who after 9/11 have approved of everything US asked for in the war on terrorism?

Because the UK has the rule of law. And as much as politicians might like to act like dictators they can't.

If a US indictment was served on Assange in UK he could fight the extradition and probably win. And it could take years.

Furthermore, have you any idea of how the legal system works in Sweden. If I were Assange, I would be far more afraid of staying in GB then going to Sweden who is known for the least corrupt legal system in the world. The only thing it can be accused of is softness.

His fear is being nabbed at the airport in Sweden. If the Swedish have the US indictment, they may just pack him straight on a plane.

Assange is either delusional or guilty of rape.

Right. And the secret renditions and the torture at Guantanamo was all in everyone's imagination.

If Assange didn't have such a high profile he would have already have been nabbed by now. Black bag over his head, orange jumpsuit and manacles.

percy_stover

Because the UK has the rule of law. And as much as politicians might like to act like dictators they can't.

If a US indictment was served on Assange in UK he could fight the extradition and probably win. And it could take years.

His fear is being nabbed at the airport in Sweden. If the Swedish have the US indictment, they may just pack him straight on a plane.

Why would this be a greater risk in Sweden? Is there any law in Sweden that differs that would make this scenario likely at all?

Right. And the secret renditions and the torture at Guantanamo was all in everyone's imagination.

If Assange didn't have such a high profile he would have already have been nabbed by now. Black bag over his head, orange jumpsuit and manacles.

Don´t build a strawman argument. All the rest is just theory.

percy_stover

It seems Equador is all over the news today.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2011/ecuador

blubloblu

krd wrote: »

Because the UK has the rule of law. And as much as politicians might like to act like dictators they can't.

If a US indictment was served on Assange in UK he could fight the extradition and probably win. And it could take years.

European Arrest Warrant means that the UK has to consent to further extradition from Sweden. If he can't be extradited from the UK, he won't be able to be extradited from Sweden.

percy_stover

blubloblu wrote: »

European Arrest Warrant means that the UK has to consent to further extradition from Sweden. If he can't be extradited from the UK, he won't be able to be extradited from Sweden.

Thank you! That makes sense.

Ken.

Double criminality

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant



Maybe what Mr.Assange allegedly did isn't a crime in the U.K. but is in Sweden. Hence trying to get him to Sweden.

I've no legal background so could be 100% wrong.

percy_stover

ken wrote: »

Double criminality

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant



Maybe what Mr.Assange allegedly did isn't a crime in the U.K. but is in Sweden. Hence trying to get him to Sweden.

I've no legal background so could be 100% wrong.

I'm just confused of what he could be accused of by the US that is legal in GB but not in Sweden.

krd

blubloblu wrote: »

European Arrest Warrant means that the UK has to consent to further extradition from Sweden. If he can't be extradited from the UK, he won't be able to be extradited from Sweden.

Okay, there's a few catches here.

One. The UK government might be quite happy to give their consent, and Assange may have no leave to appeal.

Two. When he reaches the Swedish airport, He's not automatically in the Swedish jurisdiction. They may just shuffle him along to a waiting plane bound for the US.

The whole thing is really murky. He's not being charged with rape. He hasn't been officially charged. He had consensual sex with two of his groupies.

I believe the reason the Swedish didn't charge him in absentia, and have tried to extradite him for questioning, is that the charges against him would not be crimes in the UK. So, they would have nothing on him.

The Swedish sexual misconduct law seems to be one of those antiquated laws that no longer exist in most countries. Shagging a young woman with false promises of marriage, that kind of thing.

the_djoker

Can't believe people actually believe this crap about him raping someone,
such an obvious smear campaign.

Delighted that Ecuador have granted him asylum, but that disgusting Nazi pedophile big brother UK government won't let him leave the country, what can he do to leave ?

blubloblu

krd wrote: »

Okay, there's a few catches here.

One. The UK government might be quite happy to give their consent, and Assange may have no leave to appeal.

That consent would be subject to an appeal, an would essentially be an extradition hearing; he has a good chance of winning it.

Two. When he reaches the Swedish airport, He's not automatically in the Swedish jurisdiction. They may just shuffle him along to a waiting plane bound for the US.

Pretty sure Swedish authorities have jurisdiction over their airports

The whole thing is really murky. He's not being charged with rape.

He is. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
It's the fourth count on his warrant

He hasn't been officially charged.

The Swedish justice system works in such a way that he will be charged when he arrives in Sweden. In the UK legal system, he would have been charged by now.

He had consensual sex with two of his groupies.

It is alleged he had sex with one woman, after physically coercing her, on condition that he use a condom, which he didn't.
It is alleged he raped another woman in her sleep.

I believe the reason the Swedish didn't charge him in absentia, and have tried to extradite him for questioning, is that the charges against him would not be crimes in the UK. So, they would have nothing on him.

Not using a condom without the knowledge of the other person is grounds for rape in the UK

percy_stover

The man who became world famous for his struggle for freedom would rather settle in a country where independent television stations are closed and critical journalists imprisoned than allow himself to be questioned by Swedish police.
Assange, the Mick Jagger of the internet generation , turned out to be a coward.
There is no longer any reason to be surprised by anything on all the bizarre turns in the circus surrounding Assange.
A colleague of mine were in place in London during one of the trials of the hand-over to Sweden and heard the Wikileak founder and his horde of lawyers shout about Sweden as a feminist Saudi Arabia, a Justice Banana republic and god knows what.

The fact that a populist South American president starts raving about secret trials and capital punishment are no more remarkable than Bianca Jagger confusing suspected sex crimes with freedom of speech and loudly demand that Assange shall have free passage out of the embassy.
It is easy to forget that the white-haired foil hat and his staff a few years ago was behind the disclosure of significant importance.
American pilots who amused themselves by shooting civilians from a helicopter in Iraq, fourteen year old shepherds who where imprisoned into Guantanamo. The evidence of widespread corruption in Tunisia, an undressing of a regime that is considered an important factor behind the Arab spring.
Assange travelled around the world and gave lectures about corrupt governments and companies could no longer feel safe: tv, radio and newspapers lined up to interview him.

This man hopes to fly to Ecuador, a country where President Raphael Correa imprisons journalists, closes TV stations as they were on assembly lines and threatens critics with claims of many millions. A country which, according to Reporters Without Borders press freedom barometer ports on the 104th place of 179 countries surveyed.
A lost honor is apparently not too high a price to pay to avoid questioning on sexual offenses in Sweden.
What if Assange instead had spine enough to get on a flight to Stockholm? Hearing, of course. The investigation thrown in the trash is not improbable. Given that the prosecutor has done and dealt with the evidence seems that the situation is not optimal.

The government approves a disclosure to the U.S., which he fears, is unlikely. The damage of Sweden's international diplomatic prestige would be too great.
The truth is that Assange is talking **** about the reasons for avoiding the Swedish justice. He has proven to be a completely different man than the heroic fighter for freedom, he pretends to be.
It is possibly so that he could not handle his worldwide fame, that it turned him into a conspiracy theorist of a kind that might as well devote his days to puzzle over why Barack Obama refuses to recognize why Elvis lives as thinking about how to get to Ecuador.
Unfortunately, however, all indicates that Mr. Assange is just a chicken ****.

WhyGoBald

There are some interesting comments on the Guardian's letter page. Someone states that the European arrest warrant should only be used when there is an imminent charge against a suspect. Is this the case?

krd

blubloblu wrote: »

That consent would be subject to an appeal, an would essentially be an extradition hearing; he has a good chance of winning it.

For that, he'd have to flown back to England for a fresh appeal. He's a non-UK national, so they might just refuse him re-entry. And then back to Sweden or wherever.

Pretty sure Swedish authorities have jurisdiction over their airports

Like the Irish have full jurisdiction over Shannon?


The Swedish justice system works in such a way that he will be charged when he arrives in Sweden. In the UK legal system, he would have been charged by now.

It is alleged he had sex with one woman, after physically coercing her, on condition that he use a condom, which he didn't.

And what was this physical coercing he did?

It is alleged he raped another woman in her sleep.

I'm not a woman. But I imagine it might be difficult to remain asleep with someone's penis in me.

I will say something, no one knows what happened in Sweden. The media has been peppered with stories.

The Swedish could have come to London to interview Assange, and they didn't. This is an extraordinary case, and there is no reason why they shouldn't have.

Not using a condom without the knowledge of the other person is grounds for rape in the UK

Can you cite any cases where there have been prosecutions?

Hippo

krd wrote: »

I'm not a woman. But I imagine it might be difficult to remain asleep with someone's penis in me.

Have you any idea at all of the elements of rape? Serious question.

Victor

percy_stover wrote: »

Assange is either delusional or guilty of rape.

He isn't even accused of rape.

blubloblu

Victor wrote: »

He isn't even accused of rape.

Yes he is. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

krd

Hippo wrote: »

Have you any idea at all of the elements of rape? Serious question.

He is not being charged with rape. If he did really insert his penis in someone when they were asleep, that would be rape.

And don't you dare turn this around and accuse me of making light of rape.


Threatening someone in some way into consensual sex, is rape. Someone consenting to sex because they felt under some pressure - like they were too embarrassed to say no, is not rape.

Someone I know personally, had a very traumatising experience. They had sex with someone they did not want to - at no time did they protest or ask the person to stop, as they felt they were in a state a shock when it happened. They consider the event rape but the young man was completely unaware that there was anything wrong at the time. I know the full and complete details of what happened. She was deeply traumatised for years. If a charge of rape had been brought against the young man it would have been completely unjust.

There's nothing right about this case. Allegations have been drip fed for the purpose of media manipulation. There's every chance that these stories of having sex without a condom, when they said they had one on, or climbing on someone while they were asleep and having sex with them. There's every chance these are Chinese whispers created by journalists with space to fill.

It's all nonsense. The Swedish authorities say they want him for questioning. And if he is brought there, and they know this will happen, he will simply refuse to answer questions. If they were playing straight - by now they would have charged him, and he could prepare his case. If they'd charged him, he could have had a Swedish team working on his case all this time - instead, since they haven't, he hasn't been able to do any work on it. In all likelihood as there may not be much of a case, it would get thrown out.

It's really unlikely, that they're hiding a more serious charge, or they simply would have used that in the extradition.

blubloblu

krd wrote: »

He is not being charged with rape. If he did really insert his penis in someone when they were asleep, that would be rape.

And don't you dare turn this around and accuse me of making light of rape.


Threatening someone in some way into consensual sex, is rape. Someone consenting to sex because they felt under some pressure - like they were too embarrassed to say no, is not rape.

Someone I know personally, had a very traumatising experience. They had sex with someone they did not want to - at no time did they protest or ask the person to stop, as they felt they were in a state a shock when it happened. They consider the event rape but the young man was completely unaware that there was anything wrong at the time. I know the full and complete details of what happened. She was deeply traumatised for years. If a charge of rape had been brought against the young man it would have been completely unjust.

There's nothing right about this case. Allegations have been drip fed for the purpose of media manipulation. There's every chance that these stories of having sex without a condom, when they said they had one on, or climbing on someone while they were asleep and having sex with them. There's every chance these are Chinese whispers created by journalists with space to fill.

It's all nonsense. The Swedish authorities say they want him for questioning. And if he is brought there, and they know this will happen, he will simply refuse to answer questions. If they were playing straight - by now they would have charged him, and he could prepare his case. If they'd charged him, he could have had a Swedish team working on his case all this time - instead, since they haven't, he hasn't been able to do any work on it. In all likelihood as there may not be much of a case, it would get thrown out.

It's really unlikely, that they're hiding a more serious charge, or they simply would have used that in the extradition.

These are not "chinese whispers". He is being charged with rape. It's written right there on the arrest warrant, that much is uncontestable.
Read the rest of the summary too, he is at the same stage in proceedings as being charged in the UK. I find it very hard to believe he doesn't have lawyers working on the case.
They can't "hide a more serious charge", they can only charge him for what's written on the European Arrest Warrant.
Please check your facts.

golden lane

if he gets to ecuador.........will he make a fortune giving lectures on corrupt governments.....

or will he be a registered rape advisor.......????

Hippo

krd wrote: »

And don't you dare turn this around and accuse me of making light of rape.

Be careful what you post then, and less of the threats.

krd

blubloblu wrote: »

These are not "chinese whispers". He is being charged with rape. It's written right there on the arrest warrant, that much is uncontestable.

No. The arrest warrant neither states he's wanted for questioning or if he has been charged.

Read the rest of the summary too, he is at the same stage in proceedings as being charged in the UK.

He hasn't been charged. There is just a European Arrest Warrant. Accused, wanted for questioning, charged, are all very different things.

I find it very hard to believe he doesn't have lawyers working on the case.

He does have lawyers working on his case. But so far, all they've had to go on is the arrest warrant. If he had been formally charge in Sweden they would have something to go on. They have no access to the evidence or statements, and nothing to go on.

He has lots of different lawyers working for him, as he has so many legal problems.

They can't "hide a more serious charge", they can only charge him for what's written on the European Arrest Warrant.
Please check your facts.

As far as I am aware, once he's in their jurisdiction, they can charge him with whatever they like.

blubloblu

krd wrote: »

No. The arrest warrant neither states he's wanted for questioning or if he has been charged.

He hasn't been charged. There is just a European Arrest Warrant. Accused, wanted for questioning, charged, are all very different things.

I asked you to read the link. See the third ground of appeal, and read the dismissal.

He does have lawyers working on his case. But so far, all they've had to go on is the arrest warrant. If he had been formally charge in Sweden they would have something to go on. They have no access to the evidence or statements, and nothing to go on.
He has lots of different lawyers working for him, as he has so many legal problems.

If Assange goes to Sweden, legal proceedings will be able to continue properly. It is he who is obstructing justice.

As far as I am aware, once he's in their jurisdiction, they can charge him with whatever they like.

Yet again, you can't just make up facts as you please. The European Arrest Warrant framework sets out all these rules. They can't change the charges, not can they re-extradite him without the UK's consent.

WhyGoBald

blubloblu wrote: »

Yes he is. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

I can't make out from this link what exactly is contained in the European Arrest Warrant, i.e. whether he is wanted because of allegations or because he is being charged. Only the allegations are mentioned in the link above, so I assume that Assange is wanted for questioning only.

So, if what the MEP says in this link is true, this is a misuse of the European arrest warrant, because extradition should only be an issue when charges are to be preferred.

blubloblu

WhyGoBald wrote: »

I can't make out from this link what exactly is contained in the European Arrest Warrant, i.e. whether he is wanted because of allegations or because he is being charged. Only the allegations are mentioned in the link above, so I assume that Assange is wanted for questioning only.

So, if what the MEP says in this link is true, this is a misuse of the European arrest warrant, because extradition should only be an issue when charges are to be preferred.

He has not been charged because of differences in the Swedish legal system, they don't issue charges until right before the trial. If the case was proceeding in England or Wales, he would have been charged by now. He tried an appeal using that very defence, and it was dismissed.

WhyGoBald

blubloblu wrote: »

He has not been charged because of differences in the Swedish legal system, they don't issue charges until right before the trial. If the case was proceeding in England or Wales, he would have been charged by now. He tried an appeal using that very defence, and it was dismissed.

Assuming there is even a case, he hasn't even been questioned. Extraditing someone purely on the grounds of allegations sounds like an abuse of the legal process.

GerardKeating

WhyGoBald wrote: »

Assuming there is even a case, he hasn't even been questioned. Extraditing someone purely on the grounds of allegations sounds like an abuse of the legal process.

So if you have (hypothetical case) video of some one committing an armed robbery, and before you question them, they flee to another country, you are saying it would be an abuse of the legal process to extradite them.

ResearchWill

WhyGoBald wrote: »

Assuming there is even a case, he hasn't even been questioned. Extraditing someone purely on the grounds of allegations sounds like an abuse of the legal process.

The EAW system does not allow the extradition of a person for further investigation. Case in point the Bailey case. But in this case the appeal court decided that the offence as stated on the warrant was so clear as to indicate that the requested person was required for the purpose of trial.

"In the present case, as is accepted there is nothing on the face of the EAW which states in terms that Mr Assange is accused of the offences. ... The fact that the term “accused of the offence” is not used does not matter if it is clear from the EAW that he was wanted for prosecution and not merely for questioning." (para 148)
He went on to say:
"In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court “accused” of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused."

I must sit down with the full judgement from this case and bailey and see if the Irish Supreme court may have decided differently on this case.

ResearchWill

WhyGoBald wrote: »

Assuming there is even a case, he hasn't even been questioned. Extraditing someone purely on the grounds of allegations sounds like an abuse of the legal process.

Well some would argue the the EAW system has become an abuse of process and is no longer been used as intended in the fight against terror. Many are sent back to Poland and other countries for stealing chickens and having a few euros of drugs and car theft but that's another argument.

In this case this, person can be extradited on no more than allegations. Many a trial in this country has no more than the allegations of the victim, a lot of sexual assault case have no more evidence than the victims word, in some cases of events that happened 30 years ago.

Sala

Can someone explain to me if this situation is normal and I have just not noticed it, or is it because of who he is, the underlying Wikileaks issues etc?
For example, if I claimed someone raped me and they skipped off to the UK would they go though so much effort to extradite him? Obviously we only hear about very high profile cases (Polanski, who wasn't extradited, Shawn Sulllivan accused of raping minors, also not extradited).

apache6

Sweden has issued a 'Red Note' to Interpol for Assange's arrest. Red Notes are the highest category of warrant and have only 'ever' been issued afaik for suspected terrorists and very serious criminals. This is an extraordinary move by the Swedes who really don't seem to have much of a case imo.

In addition the US has apparently issued a sealed indictment against Assange,

"According to an email from US-based intellegence company Stratfor leaked in February, US prosecutors had already issued a secret indictment against Assange.
“Not for Pub. — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect,” Stratfor official Fred Burton wrote in a January 26, 2011 email obtained by hacktivist group Anonymous.
Attorney Kevin Zeese described Assange’s extradition ruling as “extraordinary” in that no charges have actually been leveled against Assange."

Sinister undertones here. Intersting that the press focus on the 'alleged sexual offences' rather than the real issues raised re; fredom of information.

apache6

apache6 wrote: »

Sweden has issued a 'Red Note' to Interpol for Assange's arrest. Red Notes are the highest category of warrant and heve only 'ever' been issued afaik for suspected terrorists and very serious criminals. This is an extraordinary move by the Swedes who really don't seem to have much of a case imo.
In addition the US has apparently issued a sealed indictment against Assange,

"According to an email from US-based intellegence company Stratfor leaked in February, US prosecutors had already issued a secret indictment against Assange.
“Not for Pub. — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect,” Stratfor official Fred Burton wrote in a January 26, 2011 email obtained by hacktivist group Anonymous.
Attorney Kevin Zeese described Assange’s extradition ruling as “extraordinary” in that no charges have actually been leveled against Assange."

According to Wikipedia (which cites Interpol as a source) there were 7678 Red Notices issued in 2011. That works out at a little over 21 notices issued per day. On that basis I wouldn't call Red Notices particularly rare.

apache6

Interesting to see that info.

However, And, apparently, never before has Sweden requested a Red Notice based on similar circumstances and allegations. What’s more, Interpol sources say that the Red Notice posting of Julian Assange is the first and only case of its kind. Is that true ?

Colonel Gaddafi recieved an Orange Notice ? Seems strange to me.

ResearchWill

Sala wrote: »

Can someone explain to me if this situation is normal and I have just not noticed it, or is it because of who he is, the underlying Wikileaks issues etc?
For example, if I claimed someone raped me and they skipped off to the UK would they go though so much effort to extradite him? Obviously we only hear about very high profile cases (Polanski, who wasn't extradited, Shawn Sulllivan accused of raping minors, also not extradited).

For a rape situation when it has been decided to prosecute then yes very normal, it is normal also to prosecute on just the evidence of the victim and only that evidence.

In fact I have seen EAW's for €5 worth of hash, it was Poland seeking the return. But as long as the offences carries at least 12 months or 4 month or more actly given then the EAW is used.

Our man in Havana

Can Assange be simply bundled into a diplomatic car and then removed from the country?

Could it be argued he is inside a diplomatic pouch and thus protected by the Vienna Conventions?

blubloblu

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Can Assange be simply bundled into a diplomatic car and then removed from the country?

Could it be argued he is inside a diplomatic pouch and thus protected by the Vienna Conventions?

Diplomatic bags are for official diplomatic purposes only, if it's used improperly, the British are entitled to open it and arrest him.