GrahamH wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Oh and to pay out compensation for being stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Thing is, the UK is one of the rocks, and apparently actually advised the Swedish prosecutor not to question Assange in London. It looks like the UK is doing more than merely meeting it's treaty obligations. Millions have been spent, because the UK chose to act against Assange as if he was a mass murderer or something.

EXTRADITING ASSANGE

This document provides the facts about Julian Assange's situation. Mainstream reportage on Assange's case is of a poor quality, with the result that many members of the public are misinformed on the most basic facts about his legal and factual situation. This document aims to remedy this situation.

This document provides comprehensively cited information about why Julian Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador, and about the sequence of events leading up to that point.

The document also considers the most frequent false or misleading claims made in the media and demonstrates how they are incorrect. Reference is made to all of the necessary documentary evidence and each quotation links to the original source, so that readers can follow up and ascertain for themselves the truth of the matter.

Alan B wrote:A very lengthy document.
Justice for Assange

EXTRADITING ASSANGE

This document provides the facts about Julian Assange's situation. Mainstream reportage on Assange's case is of a poor quality, with the result that many members of the public are misinformed on the most basic facts about his legal and factual situation. This document aims to remedy this situation.

This document provides comprehensively cited information about why Julian Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador, and about the sequence of events leading up to that point.

The document also considers the most frequent false or misleading claims made in the media and demonstrates how they are incorrect. Reference is made to all of the necessary documentary evidence and each quotation links to the original source, so that readers can follow up and ascertain for themselves the truth of the matter.

Haven't read it all but there seems to be mine of information there. At first glance (and the way it is laid-out) it appears to be a thorough synopsis of the events so far.

Assange is sought for questioning, and may or may not eventually be charged. Under Swedish law, before any decision is made to charge a suspect the suspect must be asked to nominate witnesses, who must then be questioned by the police. If any decision is made, the police file and all of the evidence must be disclosed to the suspect. These things have not been done.

20. At around the same time, the prosecutor stated that, notwithstanding the extant arrest warrant, that the Appellant was 'not a wanted man' and would be able to attend an interview 'discreetly'.

[..]

22. Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.

According to Swedish Criminal Code, Swedish prosecutors have an obligation to progress investigations:



1.at maximum speed



2.at minimum cost



3.with minimum inconvenience to the suspect

On the Swedish national broadcaster, Radio Sweden, Swedish professor emeritus of international law Ove Bring:

It would have been possible to go to London directly, many months ago, when he had just arrived there. But now it's a matter of prestige, and it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system.

[SOURCE]

To interview Julian Assange would be lawful. It would progress an investigation that has been delayed long enough. And it would put to an end invidious departures from routine procedure.

But it would also look as if the Swedish government had "lost" in a battle of wills. It would be an admission that it was possible all along. It would vindicate now highly public international criticisms of official Swedish conduct.

And the Swedish government won't have that.

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?

GrahamH wrote:

Teague wrote:You have the right to remain silent.

Also, are you suuuure about that. If they're not charging you with a crime, they can't arrest you. You get arrested for committing a crime, not for being a suspect. This isn't Nazi Germany or North Korea - they can't just take you away for questioning.

I'm no expert on law. My understanding is that in UK law police can arrest on reasonable suspicion ("probable cause") and the CPS decides if someone is to be prosecuted, and if so what the actual charge is. You might be arrested on suspicion of murder but actually be charged later for manslaughter, for example.

Probable cause will be founded on either direct observations by the police officer, or on hearsay information provided by others to the police. The information brought by the police to the neutral and detached magistrate must establish that—considering the police officer's experience and training—the officer knows facts, either through personal observation or through hearsay information, that would suggest to a reasonable prudent person that the individual named in the warrant had committed or was committing a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant

The prosecution charge or indictment has to meet a much higher burden of proof than the probable cause arrest warrant.

monkeyboy wrote:So, if I'm reading things correctly....
Assange has sex with some Swedish ladies and there are issues over a burst condom which leads to consent issues and charges which have been referred to as rape and minor rape. They were being investigated and during these investigations, Assange travelled to Germany, quite legally.

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

Nicko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Incidentally, I agree he is technically not being detained by the UK government.

Nicko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:So, if I'm reading things correctly....
Assange has sex with some Swedish ladies and there are issues over a burst condom which leads to consent issues and charges which have been referred to as rape and minor rape. They were being investigated and during these investigations, Assange travelled to Germany, quite legally.

You've already gotten it wrong. Assange did not leave Sweden during the investigation. He left after the prosecutor concluded that even assuming every word of both women's testimonies were true, their statements did not even amount to an allegation of a crime.

Teague wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

Slippery slope fail.

Teague wrote:

Nicko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Incidentally, I agree he is technically not being detained by the UK government.

I think the UN mentioned something about his liberty as well. There's no question about that so therefore, doesn't that equate to being "detained"?

Alan B wrote:Ask yourself the question: If the Swedes have no case, the UK will not need to 'coral' the Embassy. Which country would be most upset and why?

monkeyboy wrote:

Teague wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Like I have said though. What happens if the Swedes do come to interview him in the embassy and want to arrest him and take him back with them?
Is he just going to step out into the taxi and off to the airport?

Slippery slope fail.

Ok don't bother to expand. Don't make any attempt to re word whatever you think is wrong.

Teague wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Teague wrote:You have the right to remain silent.

Also, are you suuuure about that. If they're not charging you with a crime, they can't arrest you. You get arrested for committing a crime, not for being a suspect. This isn't Nazi Germany or North Korea - they can't just take you away for questioning.

I'm no expert on law. My understanding is that in UK law police can arrest on reasonable suspicion ("probable cause") and the CPS decides if someone is to be prosecuted, and if so what the actual charge is. You might be arrested on suspicion of murder but actually be charged later for manslaughter, for example.

Probable cause will be founded on either direct observations by the police officer, or on hearsay information provided by others to the police. The information brought by the police to the neutral and detached magistrate must establish that—considering the police officer's experience and training—the officer knows facts, either through personal observation or through hearsay information, that would suggest to a reasonable prudent person that the individual named in the warrant had committed or was committing a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant

The prosecution charge or indictment has to meet a much higher burden of proof than the probable cause arrest warrant.

Then he would be wanted for a crime they suspect him of and not want him for questioning. He's under no obligation to answer any questions. You cannot just haul people in and interrogate them. If they want to put him in prison then they need to do that - there's no arrest warrant for "questioning".

(especially in the US) the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners.

After Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA launched a program of "extraordinary rendition" to handle terrorism suspects. The agency's problem, as it saw it, was that it wanted to detain and interrogate foreign suspects without bringing them to the United States or charging them with any crimes. Their solution was to secretly move a suspect to another country. Sometimes that meant a secret CIA prison in places such as Thailand or Romania, where the CIA would interrogate him. Sometimes it meant handing him over to a sympathetic government, some of them quite nasty, to conduct its own "interrogation."
...
Here's what the Open Society report has to say about the staggeringly global participation in the CIA program, including a full list of the countries it names:

The report also shows that as many as 54 foreign governments reportedly participated in these operations in various ways, including by hosting CIA prisons on their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments. Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations into agencies and officials who participated in these operations.

The 54 governments identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and include: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.