Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[noam]

No evidence is not the same as no risk. I remember reading that sources names and addresses were included in some of the information leaked.

And leaking for the sake of leaking just to me seems teenage, nihilistic, dangerous and a bit megalomaniac.

All of which of course is quite separate from me thinking the man is a creep.

[lala]

Feb 28, 2011 15:31:58 GMT noam said:

And I think a lot of the stuff Wikileaks has done has been irresponsible and politically questionable.

To be honest, its mostly been uninteresting and banal. Nothing we didn't know or strongly suspect already. Apart from the bit about Sarkozy chasing a rabbit. That was interesting, important and had obviously been kept secret due to likely immense international consequences.

I'll be impressed when he releases the secret communications between Bush II and Rumsfeld gloating about how they took down the World Trade Centre so they could invade Iraq and steal the oil. Or James Hansen and Phil Jones congratulating each other on how they've reamed millions from fraudulent research into cliamte change. Not before.

[lala]

Feb 28, 2011 17:31:13 GMT noam said:

And leaking for the sake of leaking just to me seems teenage, nihilistic, dangerous and a bit megalomaniac.

Agreed. He reminds me of some religious nutter prophet eternally predicting the end of the world, and managing to convince his followers - after every failed apocalypse - that it's still imminent. He's managed to get a long way on not actually doing or revealing very much of genuine interest. People just think because something wasn't released officially, it must therefore be secret and interesting. It isn't, and none of his sources seem to have access to the really interesting stuff. He's basically a self important pussy hound.

Like me, in otherwords, except for the pussy

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Actually, that would be good. Some seriously interesting sh*t from wikileaks wwould be good.

I mean anything really intersting. It doesn't have to be GB ordering the attack on the Twin Towers, just something interesting.

Frankly Mazhar Majeed's prediction on the no balls has trumped anything wikileaks has to offer.

[auldhippy]

Feb 28, 2011 20:47:03 GMT lala said:

Feb 28, 2011 15:31:58 GMT noam said:

And I think a lot of the stuff Wikileaks has done has been irresponsible and politically questionable.

To be honest, its mostly been uninteresting and banal. Nothing we didn't know or strongly suspect already. Apart from the bit about Sarkozy chasing a rabbit. That was interesting, important and had obviously been kept secret due to likely immense international consequences.

I'll be impressed when he releases the secret communications between Bush II and Rumsfeld gloating about how they took down the World Trade Centre so they could invade Iraq and steal the oil. Or James Hansen and Phil Jones congratulating each other on how they've reamed millions from fraudulent research into cliamte change. Not before.

Typical Lala, not happy with reality.

Yes the embassy cables were mundane, can't be helped that the truth is often mundane but the leaks attributed to Manning are far from that, they confirm war crimes, a complete disregard for "collateral damage" and prove what liars our lleaders are and why they should not benefit from secrecy and that scrutiny should be the order of the day.

Nor is it focused on Uncle Sam, we've had the BNP membership list and are soon to get the goodies on several of the banks that stole our money.

[auldhippy]

Feb 28, 2011 20:50:53 GMT lala said:

Feb 28, 2011 17:31:13 GMT noam said:

And leaking for the sake of leaking just to me seems teenage, nihilistic, dangerous and a bit megalomaniac.

Agreed. He reminds me of some religious nutter prophet eternally predicting the end of the world, and managing to convince his followers - after every failed apocalypse - that it's still imminent. He's managed to get a long way on not actually doing or revealing very much of genuine interest. People just think because something wasn't released officially, it must therefore be secret and interesting. It isn't, and none of his sources seem to have access to the really interesting stuff. He's basically a self important pussy hound.

Like me, in otherwords, except for the pussy

If it's that unimportant why is Manning facing 60 years?

[lala]

Because he consciously and deliberately violated whatever oaths he gave not to reveal the information entrusted to him, and because if they let him off with 300 hours community service as a punishment, it's effectively saying anyone can do the same.

[takemebacktolondon]

Well done LALA you are sounding more inferior to Assange with every post .
You have absolutely no f**k**g idea what his technical abilities are to have come so far .
Its apparent that you are really a loser .

[takemebacktolondon]

Thats what makes you a total fuckwit on the subject noam .
What specifically is your interest in this subject apart from homophobia .

[takemebacktolondon]

just rmember LALA AND NOAM .
Alexander the Great was Gay .
He conquered half the known world and just to put more point on it so was T J Lawrence .

[lala]

Mar 1, 2011 1:43:19 GMT takemebacktolondon said:

just rmember LALA AND NOAM .
Alexander the Great was Gay .
He conquered half the known world and just to put more point on it so was T J Lawrence .

Seriously, what the f**k are you on?

The board seems to be going through one of its funny turns. Is it a full moon or something?

Assange's sexuality not-withstanding, the point has been made that he is that the Swedish authorities want him in relation to rape charges. Or are you really of the opinion that people you like because of their whistle-blowing should be immune to prosecution because of their alleged sexual offending?

[takemebacktolondon]

Sory you are f**k**g wrong .Charges for rape were withdrawn .
He is only wanted for questioning which he has hithertoo avoided because of the slimy tactics of the Swedish government .
After first withdrawng the charges and then intervening to reinstate them I would be sus too .
Get your facts right . Your previous remarks on sexuality are irrelevant but you continue to cast aspersions .
Requests to answer questions has never been a reason for extradition and if it becomes a precedent then its a serious one .

[takemebacktolondon]

ming you do not read .
Watch wikirebels and see how interesting it is but dont watch it if you are sensitive to outright murder.

[lala]

Mar 1, 2011 5:18:26 GMT takemebacktolondon said:

Sory you are f**k**g wrong .Charges for rape were withdrawn .
He is only wanted for questioning which he has hithertoo avoided because of the slimy tactics of the Swedish government .
After first withdrawng the charges and then intervening to reinstate them I would be sus too .
Get your facts right . Your previous remarks on sexuality are irrelevant but you continue to cast aspersions .
Requests to answer questions has never been a reason for extradition and if it becomes a precedent then its a serious one .

Facts, you say?

* The allegations against Mr Assange were extradition offences
* The prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant for Mr Assange had been suitably qualified
* The warrant was issued for the purpose of prosecution and not simply for questioning

(Here)

As for the charges he'll be facing, again, the facts:

Mr Assange was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) because he has been accused of committing serious crimes in Sweden. These alleged crimes comprise one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.

(Here)

Where are your facts?

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

The question of whether he was wanted for questioning or prosecution is all handled in the findings of the court.
here you go:

In the defence skeleton argument, and opening, their position was that their client was sought simply in order tofacilitate his questioning and without having yet reached a decision as to whether or not to prosecute him. They
said that Ms Ny’s claim that all the “normal procedures for getting an interrogation” had been “exhausted” is
highly inaccurate. It was said that Mr Hurtig had repeatedly sought to make Mr Assange available to Ms Ny for
questioning, but all these efforts were rebuffed. They quoted from Mr Hurtig: “I can confirm on behalf of Mr
Assange I have been trying for many weeks to arrange for him to be questioned by Ms Ny, including by Mr
Assange returning to Sweden for questioning. All these attempts have been rebuffed by her”. A number of
media clippings were relied on to show that Ms Ny’s repeated position is that she is seeking extradition merely to
conduct an interview with Mr Assange with no decision having been taken on whether to charge or prosecute
him. Reference is also made to Brita Sundberg-Weitman and her opinion, based on her experience and on the
facts set out in the warrant and facts described by Mr Hurtig. These are that the application for an EAW was
manifestly disproportionate and her opinion is that the application was an attempt to bring Mr Assange to
Sweden for questioning rather than prosecution.
Against that, Ms Ny explains her position in her information dated 4th February 2011. She says:
B. The aim of the EAW
5.Julian Assange’s surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.

6.A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

7.According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

8.The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once the decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within two weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings.


16There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.


It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him the category of an “accused” person. There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”. Given the diverging systems of law involved, that is not surprising. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in
18
this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different. It is necessary to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question of whether as a matter of substance rather than form Mr Assange is wanted for prosecution. The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences. The fact that the defendant would be interviewed upon his return is no clear indication that this is a criminal investigation rather than a criminal prosecution. This point was made recently in Asztaslov v Szekszard City Court, Hungary [2011] 1 WLR at para 46.
Two Swedish witnesses have given evidence that in their opinion Mr Assange is not wanted for prosecution. However their opinion is fatally undermined by having been based on an incorrect assumption as to the facts. They had been told that Ms Ny made no effort to interview Mr Assange before he left Sweden with her permission and knowledge on 27th September 2010. In fact it is overwhelmingly clear that Ms Ny had contacted Mr Hurtig to arrange an interview significantly before 27th September. Having left Sweden Mr Assange has not returned. She did not know he was planning to leave Sweden on 27th September – even his own lawyer apparently only discovered that later. The most that had happened was that she had confirmed at an earlier stage that there was no legal constraint, at that time, on Mr Assange leaving the country. It is not necessary for me to determine for current purposes whether Mr Assange deliberately fled the country to avoid further proceedings. That has not been specifically alleged. What is clear however is that he has not made himself available for interview in Sweden. It is said that an interview could have occurred in another way, for example by telephone or by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. Perhaps another prosecution lawyer would have taken that step. I don’t know. Similarly I heard no submissions that English law would allow Mutual Legal Assistance in these circumstances. On the information I have, it does not seem unreasonable for a prosecutor in a serious matter such as this to expect and indeed require the presence of Mr Assange in Sweden for questioning, and if necessary to take a DNA sample. Such unanswered questions that remain are unanswered because this defendant has not complied with the request made to be interrogated in Sweden. There is then the fact that these proceedings are at the preliminary investigation stage. The decision to charge can be taken only after this stage is complete. It is not complete until interrogation has taken place and other important procedures, such as providing the evidence to the defence or nominating witnesses, have occurred. Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation a decision on whether to charge will be taken. There are obviously differences across Europe in systems and terms such as prosecution. This is well recognised. The court must take a purposeful approach. Someone who, say, commits a murder in Stockholm, immediately flees the country, and then avoids detection and interrogation, may well be wanted for prosecution (defined in a purposeful sense) in Sweden. It cannot be said, sensibly, that because he has not been interviewed then he is not wanted for prosecution and therefore no EAW can be issue. That is not the factual situation here, of course. It simply illustrates that the fact that no interrogation has taken place and therefore the preliminary investigation has not concluded is not determinative of whether a person is wanted for prosecution.
19
Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as September to interview him. He has not been interviewed. The Swedish system anticipates detention and early questioning in allegations of this type, but this has not taken place. Mr Assange is not known to have returned to Sweden since September. I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden. On the information before me I cannot say when or what step was taken that can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution. What I can say is that the boundary between suspicion and preliminary enquiries on the one hand, and prosecution on the other, has been crossed. It may be that after interrogation and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody.
It is said that the issuance of an EAW was disproportionate. This is not a free-standing bar to extradition. The witnesses’ evidence on the availability of other methods for interview, such as mutual assistance, was to some extent based on an assumption that other methods had not been tried while Mr Assange was still in Sweden. To the extent that the witnesses disagreed with the prosecutor on the facts as they turned out to be, this is a matter of legitimate differences of approach.
In summary:

1.There is an unequivocal statement that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution.

2.I am satisfied, looking at the warrant as a whole, that the requested person is an “accused” within section 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act and is wanted for prosecution under Section 2(3)(b) of the Act.

3.The court must construe the words in the Act in a cosmopolitan sense and not just in terms of the stages of English criminal procedure.

4.As this warrant uses the phrases that are used in the English language version (and indeed the Swedish language version) of the EAW annexed to the Framework Decision, there is no (or very little) scope for argument on the purpose of the warrant.

5.In those circumstances the introduction of extrinsic factual and expert evidence should be discouraged.


6.However, having looked at the extrinsic evidence (perhaps wrongly) the fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation could result in no trial taking place does not mean this defendant is suspected as opposed to accused.


7.The information provided by Ms Ny proves strong, if not irrebuttable, evidence that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution.


8.The evidence provided by the defence does not in any way undermine Ms Ny.

9.As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution.
20



I realise it's not on you tube so probably accounts for very little but as I've repeatedly pointed out to OH if you look behind the chaff thrown about you'll find the answers.

[auldhippy]

& As OH has repeatedly pointed out to you the original prosecutor dropped the rape charges and they only resurfaced due to the involvement of a politically motivated former politician and now US lacky lawyer

[lala]

Ah, when all else fails, fall back on claiming Itzz All A BIGG ConzpiraSEE.

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 8:33:53 GMT lala said:

Ah, when all else fails, fall back on claiming Itzz All A BIGG ConzpiraSEE.

Yup! Are you suggesting the US incapable or lacking a history?

Even if Assange offers no defence, or even outright denials, the likelyhood of a safe conviction based only on allegations is remote.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

onlyresurfaced due to the involvement of a politically motivated former politician and now US lacky lawyer


And you evidence for this is?

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 8:44:44 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

onlyresurfaced due to the involvement of a politically motivated former politician and now US lacky lawyer


And you evidence for this is?

The original prosecutor finding no evidence of rape!