If it is a case of pot calling kettle black; then that implies both are paranoid.

Considering that Assange hasn’t even faced trial in Sweden; that Sweden could not reasonably send a man to the US to face the death penalty; it IS pretty much paranoia on the part of the cult of Assange to worry about facing trial in Sweden.

Let’s be clear; however much Americans may know about what their country would do to civil liberties to further their agenda; I would suspect that none of them really understand the technicalities of Swedish law or understand their culture.

This isn’t to dismiss the concerns of people like Michael Moore (who I like and respect but don’t always agree with); but that the Assange loyalists raise the spectre of the US government rather than talk about Swedish and European law is pretty much a statement of their conspiracy theory mentality.

Most sickening of all, is that where people should be really concerned about what we can do to keep the good work of Wikileaks going; they are instead indulging in keeping man from facing trial in a country with a better human rights record than either the UK or the US.

There is definitely a conspiracy-theorist mentality at work among many of Assange’s supporters, and to me it comes across as paranoid. There are a number of variations – some go so far as to suggest that one of the women who made the complaint against him is a CIA agent, others say the prosecutor and judge are politically motivated, and many claim that Swedish justice is unfair and think either that the outcome is predetermined or that it does not matter because Sweden will inevitably extradite to the US, or else Assange will be “disappeared” or rendered there (which is difficult to believe with respect to such a high-profile public personality). Nearly all claim, without any evidence that stands up to a few minutes’ scrutiny, that Sweden is more likely to extradite than the UK is. This string of conspiracy theories – many of them supplemented by anti-feminist scapegoating of the women involved – seems to be widely subscribed to, and some of the celebrity supporters have openly hinted at their belief in these notions.

I hope Nick Cohen is right – problem is, he can afford to be wrong (with no real consequences) – while those unfortunate enough to be caught up in the US extradition process essentially have their lives put on hold – sometimes for a very long time.
http://juliasblog-the-fight-of-our-lives.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/want-to-know-facts-on-extradition_05.html

For example, it is reported Babar Ahmad ‘was arrested in London and taken to prison pursuant to an extradition request from the US under the controversial, no-evidence-required, Extradition Act 2003. The US has alleged that in the 1990s Babar was a supporter of “terrorism”. Babar denies any involvement in terrorism. He has now been in prison for more than seven years even though he has not been charged in the UK, despite 141,000 British citizens signing a petition to put him on trial in the UK’.

He is the longest detained without trial British citizen in modern British history – once accused of terrorism it seems the american authorities can virtually throw away the key?

Maybe the paranoia might subside slightly if both the US and Sweden gave a commitment to Assange that he will not be extradited or at least the Swedish PM might refrain from casting aspirations on Assange’s character or making factually incorrect statements about the case on public radio.

“There is definitely a conspiracy-theorist mentality at work among many of Assange’s supporters, and to me it comes across as paranoid.”

There may be some truth in that, but you have to consider the rhetoric which has been aimed at Assange and Wikileaks from the US, and what has happened to Bradley Manning. As for paranoid, do you think there is anyone involved in espionage and intelligence who isn’t paranoid? James Angleton, one-time head of the CIA, believed Harold Wilson was a KGB agent, and he didn’t trust British Intelligence at all. This was partly based on the infamous double agents Philby, Blunt etc., and the Wilson thing was based on a KGB defector. I just mention this to make the point that everyone working in intelligence is a conspiracy theorist and most of them are paranoid.

The fact that Drake is also speaking out in support of Julian Assange shows how wide the spectrum is of people united against President Obama’s disregard for civil liberties. I support the US President on a lot of things but not on civil liberties. He has been as bad as President Bush, if not worse.

One leaker supporting another leaker is hardly a broad spectrum.

And I would take these complaints more seriously if they were objections to Sweden’s insane rape laws. As opposed to what they seem to be which is a belief that their Anointed One can break as many sexual assault laws as he likes because he is Chosen or something. While the rest of us cannot.

1. Martin (@Spitefuel)

Most sickening of all, is that where people should be really concerned about what we can do to keep the good work of Wikileaks going; they are instead indulging in keeping man from facing trial in a country with a better human rights record than either the UK or the US.

What good work? Wikileaks has mainly only released names of people who work with the West so that they are exposed to retaliation and murder. Apart from that it has done what? Well, it has shown that the mainstream is right about what America does and how it does it – and the Left is delusional – but I don’t think many people here think that is good.

the a&e charge nurse

Babar denies any involvement in terrorism. He has now been in prison for more than seven years even though he has not been charged in the UK, despite 141,000 British citizens signing a petition to put him on trial in the UK’.

He is the longest detained without trial British citizen in modern British history – once accused of terrorism it seems the american authorities can virtually throw away the key?

Sorry but the Americans are not keeping him in prison. Mr Ahmed is keeping himself in prison. He can get out tomorrow. He just has to drop his appeals and go to America to face trial. He is only being kept in a British prison because he and his lawyers insist on fighting.

Now there seems to be three options here. 1. We can do away with trials all together and just trust suspected criminals when they say they are innocent, 2. we can do away with extradition so once any criminal makes it to the UK they are safe, or 3. Mr Ahmed can go to Virginia and face the charges against him. Which of these three do you support?

Trooper Thompson

James Angleton, one-time head of the CIA, believed Harold Wilson was a KGB agent, and he didn’t trust British Intelligence at all. This was partly based on the infamous double agents Philby, Blunt etc., and the Wilson thing was based on a KGB defector. I just mention this to make the point that everyone working in intelligence is a conspiracy theorist and most of them are paranoid.

The evidence would seem to suggest that they are not paranoid enough. After all, Philby, Blunt etc. You produce evidence for being paranoid – British intelligence was largely in the pay of the Soviets – and yet mock people who draw reasonable conclusions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have even more evidence that large numbers of British people in government, the Trades Unions, newspapers and so on were working for the Soviets all along. That is not paranoia, that is a historical fact. The simple fact is the Right was right about the Red Scare. Now Angleton may have over done it, but not by much.

I don’t wish to turn into Alan Duncan, Sunny, but why do you have to use the awful Americanism “gotten”?

Nick Cohen is a buffoon. But so are some of those supporting Assange. There really isn’t much to admire on either side. And as for him seeking asylum in the less than liberal Ecuador……..as our old chum Richard Littlejohn would say, “You couldn’t make it up”.

@ smfs,

“You produce evidence for being paranoid – British intelligence was largely in the pay of the Soviets – and yet mock people who draw reasonable conclusions.”

I did not intend to mock anyone, least of all James Jesus Angleton.

@ So Much For Subtlety

“What good work? Wikileaks has mainly only released names of people who work with the West so that they are exposed to retaliation and murder. ”

I’m trying to find a polite way to say clearly you know nothing about Wikileaks but your comment alone states that and your poorly structured argument do that.

Note I’m no fan of Assange (prior comment) nor am I a Wikileaks loyalist. However I don’t swallow the equally ridiculous narrative being spoon-fed about them either.

That you call Left “delusional” just makes you equally partisan and foolish as those who think Assange can do no wrong.

That’s probably more attention than your ridiculous comment needed but perhaps for one brief moment you might actually stop and wonder whether you’re just busy labelling everyone rather than actually thinking about the issues.

Feel free to prove me wrong by responding not using a single lazy clichéd label to describe those that differ from your narrow world view.

“He is only being kept in a British prison because he and his lawyers insist on fighting.”

They do? Bastards eh?

@7 whats not liberal about Ecuador? They have an extremely progressive constitution voted for overwhelmingly by the populace, whereas we dont even have one at all.

Yes, Julian Assange faces the risk of extradition to the US; and therefore for Cohen to talk of Assange’s paranoia is wide of the mark. What we don’t know is how great the risk is, but it is far from negligible.

Cohen also manages to insert the words “alleged rapist” into his diatribe against Assange. While this is literally true (i.e. he has been accused of rape), Cohen has access to all the information on the case and should know full well that the accusation is highly unlikely on the evidence to be true and certainly cannot be proved.

In all, a nasty and disappointing article from a sometimes good journalist.

The whole issue hinges on two questions: how credible are the accusations that Assange faces in Sweden and how credible is the risk to him of facing injustice either in Sweden or the US?

It seems to me that our courts have very publicly and exhaustively looked at the first question and decided that the legal case for extraditing Assange to Sweden is strong. In fact Assange agreed while in Sweden that he would attend police interviews, but decided to leg it.

I’m sceptical that Assange would be extradited from Sweden if he hasn’t already from the UK, and I think he needs to answer the accusations against him. Sweden has a very good human rights reputation and is renowned as a liberal society, or is that just propaganda and we’ve all got it wrong for years?

12/Ben: Cohen also manages to insert the words “alleged rapist” into his diatribe against Assange.

I’m unclear as to how one might neutrally describe the reason the Swedes are asking for Assange’s extradition without using either the phrase “alleged rapist” or a phrase with identical meaning.

that the accusation is highly unlikely on the evidence to be true and certainly cannot be proved.

In common with criminal trials in a wide range of nations, the UK included, the Swedish authorities have not publicly released details of their full evidence set to the press before the trial takes place. I don’t think anyone outside of the Swedish authorities can say at this stage how strong the prosecution case will be. (The extradition courts all accepted that Sweden had at least a prima facie case, however)

As regards “certainly cannot be proved”, similar cases in which a person is raped and is the only witness to the offence are proven in courts across the UK quite often. In this case, he is accused of multiple offences against two different people, which improves the ease of prosecution quite a bit.

Of course, if your defence of Assange is down to “well, he might have done it, but you can’t prove it to legal standards”, while that may rightly under the principle of innocent until proven guilty be sufficient to keep him out of a Swedish jail, it’s not really keeping the moral high ground, and nor is it an argument against extradition (as that decision is for the Swedish courts, not the UK ones).

13/Cherub: As regards the second question, the magistrate did also express an opinion on that, which you won’t find at all surprising.

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. [...] In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued.

So: his lawyers don’t think its possible, his defence witnesses don’t think it’s possible, and no evidence to the contrary or legal arguments for such were presented to the extradition court. Furthermore, to re-extradite from Sweden following extradition from the UK would allow Mr Assange two separate countries and legal systems, (plus the ECHR, of course) in which to launch lengthy appeal battles, for which the US would need to win both.

Struggling to find the will to argue about Assange after the very recent and bizarre thread where it turns out his supporters prefer to read fansites but don’t bother reading the judgements, and continually make arguments that have already been skewered (probably because they can’t be bothered to read the judgements).

SMFS,

Sorry but the Americans are not keeping him in prison. Mr Ahmed is keeping himself in prison. He can get out tomorrow. He just has to drop his appeals and go to America to face trial. He is only being kept in a British prison because he and his lawyers insist on fighting.

Now there seems to be three options here. 1. We can do away with trials all together and just trust suspected criminals when they say they are innocent, 2. we can do away with extradition so once any criminal makes it to the UK they are safe, or 3. Mr Ahmed can go to Virginia and face the charges against him. Which of these three do you support?

4. The UK should prosecute people who allegedly commit offences in the UK; if it does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute then it should let those people go (maybe keeping an eye on them); the USA should not have global jurisdiction.

How is the United States supposed to prosecute a national of a foreign country for actions committed in a third? This is an insuperable block to any extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

Even if it were possible to get round it, then it will clearly be far more difficult to persuade the Swedish government to help than it would the British government.

What this adds up to is that the stated reason Julian Assange (and his credulous supporters) fear his extradition to Sweden is manifestly irrational. There is however a very rational reason for Assange to fear extradition to Sweden, and that is the likely consequences to him in the event that the allegations of sexual assault and rape be proved.

Sorry Sunny, but, given that we know how the law works on surrendering people for trial within the EU on the EAW, given that we know how Swedish law works, given that we know how UK law works, given that we know who the alleged victims are (supporters of Wikileaks), given the way in which reactionary anti feminist rhetoric is being used, given the way in which some supposedly “liberal” Assangists now seem to believe that unless a woman screams the word “no” and fights, then it’s not really rape, given the weird stories about how in Sweden any sex without a condom is classed as rape, given the constant refutation of factual positions from the followers of the cult of Assange, yes, they are paranoid!

So Much For Subtlety -

Apart from that it has done what?

Well, let me see: it exposed the mistreatment of prisoners by the Iraqi security forces; the efforts of the Americans to scotch probes into torture; the mistreatment of Kashmiri prisoners by Indian forces; the UK’s relationship with thugs in Bangladesh; the scale of the tragedy in Afghanistan; the British state’s bullying of the Chagossians — I could go on.

This doesn’t excuse their woeful irresponsibility but nor should that be used as an excuse to dismiss all their work.

I’m no defender of Assange, by the way – I have no knowledge of his case – but Cohen’s insistence that because the ACLU have said it would be unconstitutional to prosecute him the US government wouldn’t do it is an example of immense naivete that is, I guess, to be excepted from an interventionist.

If you hold a belief that cannot, on principle, be disproven since any evidence, even where it directly contradicts that belief, can simply be incorporated into your beliefs by expanding the scope of the conspiracy, then that belief is indeed a conspiracy theory, and you are paranoid.

If you think the actors in your conspiracy are willing to act in a perverse manner, even if doing so goes against their own rational best interests, simply because they are perverse, then your belief is a conspiracy, and you are paranoid.

The conspiracy theory here states that two women have lied about sexual assaults in order for their government to extradite Assange so that a second government can extradite him and prosecute him against their own constitution.

That theory includes so many assumptions of perverse behaviour on the behalf of so many people, and is not theoretically refutable because it is constantly expanding to include more and more irrational actors, that I would check my tablets to ensure I hadn’t skipped a few days.

Yet, the man who cheered on an attack on Iraq on the basis it was a threat to world peace is now accusing others of “paranoia”.

Do you still support the invasion of Afghanistan? Just wondering if believing only half of New Labour’s lies really qualifies you for calling other people paranoid.

@cherub #13:

Sweden has a very good human rights reputation and is renowned as a liberal society, or is that just propaganda and we’ve all got it wrong for years?

No, we were right for all those years but almost 2 years ago, after Wikileaks put its servers there but just before Julien Assange met Anna Ardin, Sweden became a puppet of the US…

Let’s get some myths sorted out please:

1) The cable leaks actually did not show either the US or the UK in bad light – in fact, both countries came across rather well. So, Assange and supporters claimed that they had a different public face and private face — actually not true it was our so called allies in the Arab world who were being not very honest in public.

2) Diplomacy works because most of the work is done behind the scenes – for example, ithe 1992 Oslo agreement and the subsequent treaty which gave birth to the Paliestinian Authority would not have materialised if the entire negotiation was done in public. Every instance where the negotiations were public, it fell through because nutters from both side castigated bits of it even before a coherent whole was formed.

3) If Assange is so for transparency why has he been so evasive about Wikileaks, its finances etc etc and his ex colleagues don’t have much respect for him.

4) When advice or confidential diplomatic talks get leaked it causes real damage and has real impact on lives of human beings…and we all know what Assange thought of Afghans helping the NATO forces get rid of Taliban..Don’t we?

5, If Assange is so hot about human rights and truth – then why the hell is working for RT. And interviewing Imran Khan (another Pakistan Army supported truth seeker) and Ecuadorian President….

7. If transparency is all what everyone who is so called “progressive” seek then could we have the memos, emails, details of phone conversations about how Dan hodges got fired by New Statesman — rumours are it had to do with the Labour leader’s office — may be Assange could so an interview with Mehdi hasan from inside the Ecuadorian embassy… That would be perfect -

8. Sweden has far stricter extradition rules than the UK — that is a fact.

9. Maybe Assange is worried about getting convicted because he knows he committed the crimes…

Go figure and these supporters call themselves progressives…yeah whatever?

The facts:

(1) US vice president Joe Biden has called Assange a “terrorist”.

(2) the USA regularly assassinates those it considers to be “terrorists”.

These facts alone suggest to me that Assange has good reason to fear for his life and/or liberty.

[20] ‘The conspiracy theory here states that two women have lied about sexual assaults in order for their government to extradite Assange so that a second government can extradite him and prosecute him against their own constitution’ – wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

The REAL conspiracy theory is that hawks in the US have bewitched right wing elements Sweden in order to exploit a golden opportunity that unexpectedly fell into their lap.
As soon as word of sex crimes started circulating the hawks instantly recognised that they had to kick some prosecutor ass due to the pedestrian, and plodding nature of the Swedish investigation.

And it’s not because the hawks think they will be able to extradite him (although they certainly would if they could) but because;
Irrespective of the outcome the case trashes his reputation – at best he will always be just another man who walked (due to lack of evidence) and not because the women weren’t telling the truth all along.
The public were reminded on a near daily basis that the highly sexed do-gooder was getting through more women than Mick Jagger instead of saving the world.
The slur on Assange reflected very badly on Wiki, and Wiki supporters who could be portrayed as rape apologists if they weren’t careful?
The allegations finish him off as a credible, or serious investigator.
And even if he can’t be extradited, or found guilty of rape those who regard him as worse than a terrorist can at least enjoy the discomfiture associated with prolonged uncertainty, solitary in the UK, house arrest, then further solitary in Sweden with no way of ever being able to clear your name.

Conviction for rape in Sweden would be the icing on the cake, but in any event JA is finished – or at least, that’s how the conspiracy theory goes?

9. Martin (@Spitefuel)

I’m trying to find a polite way to say clearly you know nothing about Wikileaks but your comment alone states that and your poorly structured argument do that.

Really? What else have they done?

Note I’m no fan of Assange (prior comment) nor am I a Wikileaks loyalist. However I don’t swallow the equally ridiculous narrative being spoon-fed about them either.

So …. you think it is all a CIA plot to get him to America?

Jimmy

They do? Bastards eh?

They do. Self-inflicted pain is still self-inflicted.

ukliberty

4. The UK should prosecute people who allegedly commit offences in the UK; if it does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute then it should let those people go (maybe keeping an eye on them); the USA should not have global jurisdiction.

So you are opting for the abolition of extradition? By all means, you will not find someone more opposed to global jurisdiction. Not by the Americans or anyone else. But that is not the issue. He is alleged to have committed crimes involving American computers. In the US.

Does this same logic apply to Assange? He too is alleged to have committed a crime overseas. In Sweden. I am pretty sure no UK Court will have sufficient evidence to prosecute – indeed the offense is so minor I would be surprised if it would make the threshold for rape most places. Even the UK. So he ought to be freed?

BenSix

Well, let me see: it exposed the mistreatment of prisoners by the Iraqi security forces; the efforts of the Americans to scotch probes into torture; the mistreatment of Kashmiri prisoners by Indian forces; the UK’s relationship with thugs in Bangladesh; the scale of the tragedy in Afghanistan; the British state’s bullying of the Chagossians — I could go on.

Oh please go on. Because we knew all that anyway. It added nothing new.

The most that Wikileaks has done is show that the British and Americans act just like they say they do. Unlike most other nations.

22. Robin Levett

No, we were right for all those years but almost 2 years ago, after Wikileaks put its servers there but just before Julien Assange met Anna Ardin, Sweden became a puppet of the US…

It is getting harder and harder to tell irony from zealotry.

Phil Hunt

These facts alone suggest to me that Assange has good reason to fear for his life and/or liberty.

I don’t think Obama is operating many drones over the UK, but perhaps to be on the safe side JA ought to stay indoors.

the a&e charge nurse

The REAL conspiracy theory is that hawks in the US have bewitched right wing elements Sweden in order to exploit a golden opportunity that unexpectedly fell into their lap.

I am going to go with irony in this case. After all a&e is normally a good poster. Sane anyway. And given there is no evidence of US involvement this cannot be a serious post.

As soon as word of sex crimes started circulating the hawks instantly recognised that they had to kick some prosecutor ass due to the pedestrian, and plodding nature of the Swedish investigation.

And you know this because ….. ?

The irony of blaming American Conservatives for the insanely feminist laws of Sweden – and the vindictiveness with which some feminists use such laws from the older complainant to the prosecutor herself – who is not conservative at all – is really appreciated.

[27] SMFS – you say, ‘The irony of blaming American Conservatives for the insanely feminist laws of Sweden – and the vindictiveness with which some feminists use such laws from the older complainant to the prosecutor herself – who is not conservative at all – is really appreciated’.

I do not think the behaviour of the Hawks would have been driven by Swedish’s law, or feminism – but having learnt that their nemesis had become embroiled in a serious sex crime, and that their Swedish counterparts were not applying sufficient jack boot, might have triggered one or two behind the scenes conversations – according to the conspiracy theory, anyway.

SMFS,

4. The UK should prosecute people who allegedly commit offences in the UK; if it does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute then it should let those people go (maybe keeping an eye on them); the USA should not have global jurisdiction.

So you are opting for the abolition of extradition?

So you opt to put words in my mouth?

By all means, you will not find someone more opposed to global jurisdiction. Not by the Americans or anyone else. But that is not the issue. He is alleged to have committed crimes involving American computers. In the US.

I have what purports to be a copy of the indictment – that isn’t my understanding of the allegations. Tell me your understanding of the allegations.

Does this same logic apply to Assange? He too is alleged to have committed a crime overseas. In Sweden. I am pretty sure no UK Court will have sufficient evidence to prosecute – indeed the offense is so minor I would be surprised if it would make the threshold for rape most places. Even the UK. So he ought to be freed?

It’s alleged Assange committed four offences in Sweden, including rape (which, um, isn’t “minor”) so he should be extradited to Sweden. IIUC, it isn’t alleged Ahmad committed offences in the US.

Aha, the US jurisdictional thing becomes clear; some websites Ahmad supposedly operated were hosted on servers located in Connecticut (but I don’t see that in the ‘indictment’).

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/13.html

The alleged offences are offences in English law: (1) conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; (2) providing material support to terrorists; (3) conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons, or damage property, in a foreign country; and (4) money laundering. The alleged facts of the offences included that Mr Ahmad had participated in fundraising for terrorism online, and that in 2001 Mr Ahmad had acquired then-classified US Navy plans relating to a battlegroup operating in the Persian Gulf, which discussed its vulnerability to terrorist attack.

The CPS said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

[30] ‘The CPS said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him’ – yes, it can be bummer when there is no chance to test the standard of evidence in a british court (as JA found to his cost when the EAW was issued).

“@cherub #13:

‘Sweden has a very good human rights reputation and is renowned as a liberal society, or is that just propaganda and we’ve all got it wrong for years?’

No, we were right for all those years but almost 2 years ago, after Wikileaks put its servers there but just before Julien Assange met Anna Ardin, Sweden became a puppet of the US…”

As SMFS says, it’s now impossible to tell if you are serious or taking the piss.

The CIA et al are probably now sitting back, muching popcorn and hoping this spins out as long as possible. There is no real point trying to put Assange on trial now since:

a) the supposedly damaging leaks have been an almighty damp squib. As Shamit notes: “The cable leaks actually did not show either the US or the UK in bad light – in fact, both countries came across rather well.”

b) he and his nutty supporters are doing such a great job of making utter chumps of themselves and presenting themselves as either untrustworthy or at least not to be taken very seriously. No one can damage them as much as they are damaging themselves.

It’s a shame, because wikileaks could have been a force for good round the world. Unfortunately it was always a narrow ideological project for Assange, not a commitment to some universal principle – i.e. he has shown little interest in exposing the secrets of the enemies of the US/UK/ Israel, and indeed has foolishly ended up seeking alliances with governments who are anything but the friends of freedom of information and political freedom.

But by all means do carry on, Robin – you and the rest of the Assange cult are doing a great job dolling yourselves up as clowns.

@Lamia #32:

But by all means do carry on, Robin – you and the rest of the Assange cult are doing a great job dolling yourselves up as clowns

Do try to keep up, Lamia; perhaps a quick look at one of my posts on the other Assange thread here might help? Go and have a look; I’ll still be here when you come back…

@Lamia #32 (contd):

Indeed, just find the thread and Ctrl-F “conspiracy commentariat”.

@ Robin,

Apologies. I hadn’t seen your comments on other threads. I am afraid I have seen so much like your ironically-offered argument offered quite seriously that I assumed this was just another nutty instance.

Hey a&e @31, you forgot to put one of your disingenuous question marks on the end of either sentence there?

[36] – hey UKL, for someone who is ‘struggling to find the will to argue about Assange’ I see you are commenting again – anyway, ignore the substantive point if you want to (selective complaints about the standard of evidence in extradition cases) and focus instead on, err, question marks.

@Lamia #35:

No problem – I forgot that Poe’s law applies here as elsewhere on the ‘Net.

A&E, why should the CPS prosecute Assange for offences allegedly committed in Sweden?

[39] ‘why should the CPS prosecute Assange for offences allegedly committed in Sweden?’ – eh, what are you taking about – I said extradition does not require a british court to consider the standard of evidence under a EAW – yet when Babar Ahmad was whisked off to the US (under the no-evidence-required Extradition Act 2003) you complained that there was ‘insufficient evidence to prosecute him’.

Don’t you realise that once such extradition mechanisms are activated (providing they comply with requirements) then the standard of evidence is virtually irrelevant until the likes of Babar Ahmad, or Julian Assange find themselves facing the American or Swedish judicial systems?

Don’t tell me you are belatedly waking up to the fact extradition arrangements involve some degree of surrender of the standards and procedures we are familiar with in the british to courts to those of other countries?

ps apologies for the disingenuous question marks

a&e,

[39] ‘why should the CPS prosecute Assange for offences allegedly committed in Sweden?’ – eh, what are you taking about – I said extradition does not require a british court to consider the standard of evidence under a EAW – yet when Babar Ahmad was whisked off to the US (under the no-evidence-required Extradition Act 2003) you complained that there was ‘insufficient evidence to prosecute him’.

Don’t you realise that once such extradition mechanisms are activated (providing they comply with requirements) then the standard of evidence is virtually irrelevant until the likes of Babar Ahmad, or Julian Assange find themselves facing the American or Swedish judicial systems?

Jesus fucking christ?

1. Babar Ahmad hasn’t yet been “whisked off”, having three months from April to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights?

2. I “complained” there was “insufficient evidence to prosecute him” having made the point that he allegedly committed those offences while he was on UK soil, not US soil, and was investigated by UK authorities who gave the US the evidence they found, distinguishing him then from Assange, who is fighting extradition to Sweden for allegedly committing offences while he was in Sweden, who is under investigation by the Swedish authorities?

Don’t tell me you are belatedly waking up to the fact extradition arrangements involve some degree of surrender of the standards and procedures we are familiar with in the british to courts to those of other countries?

You are teaching granny to suck eggs?

If there are any readers who are prepared to read things people post links to, here is some criticism of our current extradition arrangements from the Home Affairs Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/64403.htm#a2

ps apologies for the disingenuous question marks

Never mind?

[41] I “complained” there was “insufficient evidence to prosecute him” having made the point that he allegedly committed those offences while he was on UK soil, not US soil, and was investigated by UK authorities who gave the US the evidence they found, distinguishing him then from Assange, who is fighting extradition to Sweden for allegedly committing offences while he was in Sweden, who is under investigation by the Swedish authorities?’

The location of alleged crimes is totally IRRELEVANT to the point I am making – it appears I have to spell it out again.

Neither the US or Sweden are required to provide any evidence of a crime (subject to scrutiny in a british court) before extradition can be granted (leaving aside arguments that the allegations are recognised as crimes in both countries) – for those facing trumped up charges this is a rather important principle.

I am not teaching granny how to suck eggs, I am asking granny to stick to the point.

I assume you are in favour of the principle since I do not recall you raising any objections to it in the Assange case?

A&E,

The location of alleged crimes is totally IRRELEVANT to the point I am making – it appears I have to spell it out again.

But it’s not totally irrelevant to the point I’m making.

Neither the US or Sweden are required to provide any evidence of a crime (subject to scrutiny in a british court) before extradition can be granted … I assume you are in favour of the principle since I do not recall you raising any objections to it in the Assange case?

You argued about it with Robin relatively late in the thread (remember you said he moved the goal posts, “this discussion, in the main, has not been about the mechanics of the EAW per se”) and I couldn’t add anything to what he wrote.

In any case, for the record I’m inclined to agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report I linked to @41.

[43] In this context I assume you are alluding to the bits which say “It is clear that the US Constitution requires that the Treaty include the “probable cause” test for extradition from the USA to the UK. The Committee can see no reason why an identical safeguard should not be granted to those whose extradition is sought in the opposite direction and we believe it would be in the interests of justice for the Treaty explicitly to offer the same protection to people whose extradition is sought from either country”.

And …… “Extradition imposes a significant burden on the accused, who might have to spend many months or years living in a foreign country, often in prison, away from their home, family, friends and job. It would be fundamentally unjust to submit an innocent person to such an ordeal, even if they were subsequently acquitted at trial. The Committee does not therefore believe that extradition should take place without some case being made against the requested person and we recommend that the Government seek urgently to re-negotiate the Treaty in order to introduce an evidence test, while balancing issues such as delay and cost”.

If I could push you just a bit further (since the report pertains to a country that still executes people, or locks them up without trial) would you argue for a similar ‘evidence test’ safeguard in the context of a EAW?

I’m inclined to agree with all the conclusions and recommendations in the conclusions and recommendations section, paras 1 to 7. So yes, I agree with the paras you quote. The same should go for EAWs.

@ukliberty #45:

I’m inclined to agree with all the conclusions and recommendations in the conclusions and recommendations section, paras 1 to 7. So yes, I agree with the paras you quote. The same should go for EAWs.

The Baker Review, upon whose conclusions the Select Committee relied in its criticisms of the US-UK extradition arrangements in this report, did not take this view; see Parts 4 and 5, (and specifically para 5.208 onward) in relation to the EAW, and Part 8 in relation to the primae facie case requirement, at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/extradition-review?view=Binary

The summary of conclusions and recommendations includes the following paragraph:

1.26 There is no good reason to re-introduce the prima facie case requirement for category 1 territories. No evidence was presented to us to suggest that European arrest warrants are being issued in cases where there is insufficient evidence.

which reflects the more detailed discussion of the requirement in Part 8.

Putting it more shortly; the source you rely on doesn’t support an argument for re-introduction of such a requirement in relation to the EAW.

28. the a&e charge nurse

I do not think the behaviour of the Hawks would have been driven by Swedish’s law, or feminism – but having learnt that their nemesis had become embroiled in a serious sex crime, and that their Swedish counterparts were not applying sufficient jack boot, might have triggered one or two behind the scenes conversations – according to the conspiracy theory, anyway.

But is it a theory you endorse? Why do you think that the feminism of the prosecutor is not enough? Swedish law is bizarre on this subject – and he does look bang to rights if he laid a finger on a girl before she properly woke up. It does not need a conspiracy. It just needs someone like Julie Bindel in charge. Which they seem to have.

ukliberty

So you opt to put words in my mouth?

A question, by definition, is not putting words in your mouth. You seem to be claiming that regardless of whether Ahmed committed a crime in US law, and perhaps in the US, he should not be sent to face trial if he did not commit a law in UK law in the UK. Isn’t that a call for the abolition of extradition?

I have what purports to be a copy of the indictment – that isn’t my understanding of the allegations. Tell me your understanding of the allegations.

It may be I am getting my terrorist suspects confused, but as I understand it, Ahmed is accused of running a website supporting terrorism which was hosted on computers in the US. As well as receiving information pertinent to the preparation of a terrorist act which was handed to him by an American serviceman.

It’s alleged Assange committed four offences in Sweden, including rape (which, um, isn’t “minor”) so he should be extradited to Sweden. IIUC, it isn’t alleged Ahmad committed offences in the US.

Well in the immortal words of Whoopy Goldberg, it wasn’t rape-rape was it? He is alleged to have initiated sex with some Swedish girl before she was properly awake. So have most men I would think. Technically it may fall under the definition of rape, but I doubt any sane person would bother to prosecute. It is alleged that Ahmed committed offenses in the UK. But still, I would be happy to extradite him to Chechnya if you would prefer.

ukliberty

The CPS said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

In Britain. Because using a computer overseas to encourage overseas terrorist attacks is not usually an offense in Britain. But it is likely to be an offense overseas. So if there is good reason to think there is a case to answer, it is overseas Ahmed should go to face such accusations. He continues to delay the court of justice through endless appeals. And while there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, I notice the legal system is not happy to give him bail either. Which is unusual in a country that gives almost everyone bail. You might think they think he is dangerous.

the a&e charge nurse

yes, it can be bummer when there is no chance to test the standard of evidence in a british court (as JA found to his cost when the EAW was issued).

In both cases it is not a question of testing the evidence. It is a question of whether British Courts have jurisdiction. British Courts do not try Swedish rape cases. They do not try fund raising for terrorist attacks in Chechnya. They do not try preparation for terrorist attacks on the US Navy in the Gulf. We have extradition so that we can send suspects to jurisdictions where they will be tried. And now we have two stupid extradition treaties that allow the Americans to claim pretty much anyone they want – and a European one that is even worse. By all means criticise these capitulations to foreign powers. Protect everyone’s civil liberties. But don’t claim your favourites are exempt from the same laws that apply to the rest of us.

SMFS,

The CPS said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

In Britain. Because using a computer overseas to encourage overseas terrorist attacks is not usually an offense in Britain. But it is likely to be an offense overseas. So if there is good reason to think there is a case to answer, it is overseas Ahmed should go to face such accusations.

Curiously, you’re arguing what Ahmad argued on appealing against the extradition; that what he allegedly did wasn’t an offence under English law. The court disagreed (as do I, fwiw), see para 45 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2927.html.

The reason he can be extradited is that what he allegedly did were offences under English law at the time he allegedly committed them.

What puzzles me, to spell it out yet again, is that these offences that he allegedly committed while in the UK were not prosecuted by the UK authorities (which arrested him, searched his house etc) because of insufficient evidence. Which on the face of it suggests (1) the US and UK have the same standards but the US has additional evidence we are not able to use for some reason or (2) we have a higher burden in this regard than the US.

He continues to delay the court of justice through endless appeals. And while there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, I notice the legal system is not happy to give him bail either. Which is unusual in a country that gives almost everyone bail. You might think they think he is dangerous.

There aren’t endless appeals, he has one remaining, which is an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (I think it has to be lodged no later than this month as it happens, otherwise he’s out). Occasionally the authorities get it wrong – see the case of Lotfi Raissi for example.

@SMFS #47:

Well in the immortal words of Whoopy Goldberg, it wasn’t rape-rape was it? He is alleged to have initiated sex with some Swedish girl before she was properly awake. So have most men I would think. Technically it may fall under the definition of rape, but I doubt any sane person would bother to prosecute.

You really don’t like (?understand?) the idea that woman may have different attitudes towards sex with and without a condom, do you?

To rephrase your sentence above “He is alleged to have initiated unprotected sex with some Swedish girl who had previously told him that she was not prepared to agree to his having unprotected sex with her before she was properly awake and therefore (i) was unable to prevent him entering her unprotected and (ii) as he well knew maintained her refusal of unprotected sex.

That’s rape in the UK and elsewhere and (if committed in the UK) the CPS would charge it as such.

Robin,

Putting it more shortly; the source you rely on doesn’t support an argument for re-introduction of such a requirement in relation to the EAW.

I know, but istm the principles they talk about do support it.

They didn’t look at the EAW for that report, but they are supposed to at some point as part of an inquiry into extradition. The JCHR looked at the EAW; among its conclusions,

We agree with Liberty that adding a requirement for the requesting country to show a prima facie case—or a similarly robust evidential threshold in a civil law state— before a person is extradited will improve the protection of human rights of those subject to extradition. In particular, this will require investigatory authorities to assess the available evidence before issuing a request for extradition, particularly within the EU, thus reducing the likelihood that a person could be extradited on speculative charges or for an alleged offence which they could not have committed. [JUSTICE and the Law Society disagree.)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/156/15611.htm

Oh, sorry Robin, I thought you meant the HAC report, not the Baker Review (as “the source” I rely on). I haven’t read the Baker Review, thanks for the link.

48. ukliberty

Curiously, you’re arguing what Ahmad argued on appealing against the extradition; that what he allegedly did wasn’t an offence under English law. The court disagreed (as do I, fwiw),

Interesting.

What puzzles me, to spell it out yet again, is that these offences that he allegedly committed while in the UK were not prosecuted by the UK authorities (which arrested him, searched his house etc) because of insufficient evidence. Which on the face of it suggests (1) the US and UK have the same standards but the US has additional evidence we are not able to use for some reason or (2) we have a higher burden in this regard than the US.

Or we are just gutless and incompetent when it comes to prosecuting. Who knows? What I do know is that we have a chance to send this man off to face justice in another country with a good human rights record. I see no reason not to do so.

There aren’t endless appeals, he has one remaining, which is an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (I think it has to be lodged no later than this month as it happens, otherwise he’s out). Occasionally the authorities get it wrong – see the case of Lotfi Raissi for example.

They have been pretty endless so far. We shall see. You are assuming that the Courts come to the right conclusion in the end. An interesting assumption.

Robin Levett

You really don’t like (?understand?) the idea that woman may have different attitudes towards sex with and without a condom, do you?

Actually I wasn’t talking about that complaint but the other one. To quote from Wikipedia:

“There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed “unlawful coercion” when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he “sexually molested” complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he “deliberately molested” complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body”

Condom-less sex with complainant 2 while she was still asleep, or more accurately he started to have sex with her while she was still asleep. At some point penetration took place without clear consent being given, but then neither was it denied. A lot of people have been there and done that.

To rephrase your sentence above “He is alleged to have initiated unprotected sex with some Swedish girl who had previously told him that she was not prepared to agree to his having unprotected sex with her before she was properly awake and therefore (i) was unable to prevent him entering her unprotected and (ii) as he well knew maintained her refusal of unprotected sex.

Well no. He had sex with complainant 1 after she demanded a condom. He initiated sex with complainant 2 while she was still asleep. Two different cases. What is more, a girl who is asleep when you put your hand on her arse is unlikely to be still asleep when penetration takes place. Nor, and I can’t believe I am saying this, does rejection of a condom once imply a rejection of a condom for all time. That seems a stretch.

That’s rape in the UK and elsewhere and (if committed in the UK) the CPS would charge it as such.

If it happened as you said, perhaps but I doubt they would bother. But as it happened in reality it is a little more complicated. Especially as the younger, hotter complainant 2 did not actually complain until the older complainant 1 discovered that Assange had left her to sleep with the younger girl, and she had talked the younger girl into filing a complaint. A sensible CPS would not touch this with a ten foot barge pole.

Memo to those earnestly debating with So Much For My Dwindling Sense of Self:- you are engaging with an enthusiastic supporter of General Pinochet. Perhaps you should spend a little less time on giving credence to this man’s self-appointed view as an authority on the ins and outs of Human Rights and the rule of law.

@SMFS #52:

Well no. He had sex with complainant 1 after she demanded a condom. He initiated sex with complainant 2 while she was still asleep. Two different cases. What is more, a girl who is asleep when you put your hand on her arse is unlikely to be still asleep when penetration takes place. Nor, and I can’t believe I am saying this, does rejection of a condom once imply a rejection of a condom for all time. That seems a stretch.

Well, if you’re going to rely upon Wikipedia…

Read the judgments which set out the alleged behaviour complained of; the Divisional Court is perhaps the best. They had sex three times with a condom, at her insistence – she’d refused sex without one. She went to sleep and woke up to find him penetrating her without a condom. So this is a case where he was allegedly fully aware of the requirement for protection, but ignored it.

I assume you meant to say “Nor, and I can’t believe I am saying this, does rejection of unprotected sex once imply a rejection of unprotected sex for all time”

This is where your problem manifests itself. Once a woman has said no to unprotected sex, whyever would you assume that she has changed her mind simply because she’s fallen asleep?

SMFS,

There aren’t endless appeals, he has one remaining, which is an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (I think it has to be lodged no later than this month as it happens, otherwise he’s out). Occasionally the authorities get it wrong – see the case of Lotfi Raissi for example.

They have been pretty endless so far. We shall see.

There have been about four or five, I think. Do you work with numbers in your day job?

54. Robin Levett

Well, if you’re going to rely upon Wikipedia…

You continue to claim Wikipedia is wrong and that the girl who wanted a condom was the girl he started to have sex with while asleep. Why is that?

This is where your problem manifests itself. Once a woman has said no to unprotected sex, whyever would you assume that she has changed her mind simply because she’s fallen asleep?

I don’t. Although obviously people say all sorts of things at Time A only to agree to something else at Time B. I point out that it is a nightmare to prosecute. Although, as before, all the evidence seems to suggest these are two different women. Why do you think otherwise?

55. ukliberty

There have been about four or five, I think. Do you work with numbers in your day job?

A glib answer. Seven years in prison. But this is just typical of what is wrong with the British legal system. It is run by and for lawyers. Ahmed and Assange both deserved a quicker response. It is not as if there is much doubt about these cases. But Ahmed has been in prison for years. The process has become the punishment. While lawyers get fat off appeal after appeal after appeal. All for a case that is pretty straightforward. So you claim it is coming to an end. Let’s hope so. But given the incentive to keep appealing I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a way to make even more money out of this case.

Alternative commentary from a Swedish feminist here
http://www.khelenebergman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/julian-assange-is-already-condemned-by.html

Still, lets not get too paranoid.

@SMFS #56:

You continue to claim Wikipedia is wrong and that the girl who wanted a condom was the girl he started to have sex with while asleep. Why is that?

Because I’ve read the judgments of the District Judge, the Divisional Court, and the Supreme Court? Perhaps, therefore, because I’m better informed than you?

Both girls insisted on condoms; see para 3 of the Divisional Court judgment, which sets out the charges:

2. Sexual molestation – On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

…

4. Rape – On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

The Divisional Court took the view that a jury would be entitled to convict of rape in English law on each charge.

@a&e cn #57:

So which conspiracy theory is true? That this is all a conspiracy by left wing man-hating feminists, as Ms Bergman believes; or a conspiracy by the prosecutor with the centre-Right government which is collaborating with the US to get Assange to Sweden so he can be extradited to the US?

58. Robin Levett

Because I’ve read the judgments of the District Judge, the Divisional Court, and the Supreme Court? Perhaps, therefore, because I’m better informed than you?

Perhaps. If only you could read.

Both girls insisted on condoms;

Care to quote that part too?

see para 3 of the Divisional Court judgment, which sets out the charges:

2. Sexual molestation – On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm,

That is, complainant 1.

4. Rape – On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

Complainant 2. Two separate cases. AA != SW. As I said.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Sexual integrity. An interesting concept. No doubt bad behaviour. Perhaps even rape in British law these days. But not something I would want to prosecute.

@SMFS #60:

Oh, dear; reduced to deletign that part of my post which makes my point.

You have deleted the part of Charge 2 (involving Complainant 1) which said:

Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

There, I’ve emphasised it for you; complainant 1 insisted on a condom.

You have quoted the part of charge 4 that refers to complainant 2 insisting on the use of a condom.

So my point that both complainants say they insisted on JA using a condom is made out, yes?

@SMFS #60:

Sexual integrity. An interesting concept.

The right to decide whether and on what terms one agrees to engage in sexual activity with another is in your view merely “an interesting concept”.

With the very greatest possible respect I can muster; you have a lot to learn. But then I already knew that.

SMFS,

55. ukliberty

There have been about four or five, I think. Do you work with numbers in your day job?

A glib answer.

Well it’s a struggle to take you seriously. You say, “He continues to delay the court of justice through endless appeals”, but four or five it isn’t an endless number is it? You remind me of a colleague who says “loads” when he means five. You’d be great together: “we sold loads of units the other day”, “yeah, endless amounts of money.”

Seven years in prison. But this is just typical of what is wrong with the British legal system.

In fact, the wheel of justice dealt with him relatively quickly in the UK. It was when he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights it started to grind very slowly. Oh, it probably didn’t help that the Met beat him up.

Now reply with something ignorant about all that.

[59] ‘So which conspiracy theory is true’ – Bergman’s comments do not suggest a conspiracy theory, but are more general comments about the relationship between Sweden’s culture, especially it’s sexual climate, and the legal ramifications of this sort of thinking (so no more than an opinion piece) – I linked to it to demonstrate that there is some disquiet, about the nature of the accusations amongst feminists, even if it is an ‘old school’ feminist.

Do I think it’s possible american hawks have brought pressure to bear on swedish counterparts to reenergise the investigation – well, in the light of the dogged pursuit of of Gary McKinnon, who I understand is to be extradited then, yes, I think the hawks simply cannot get a good nights sleep until those who dare to interfere with the war machine are languishing in an american penal facility.

As I mention above, even if the hawks cannot extradite Assange by legal means they can at least rest safe in the knowledge that the wider implications of the case have destroyed his reputation – so a win-win situation either way.