Teague wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Teague wrote:He also has not been charged with any crime. Is not wanted for any crime afaik and even the alleged "victim" as repeatedly said she was not raped. He is only wanted for questioning? - he is not legally bound to go in for questioning.

He's not been charged, but a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been issued and approved by courts in Sweden and UK for him to be arrested and brought in for questioning. There is no general requirement for such questioning to be done in particular place and it could be done in London, but there is some legal force behind the questioning due to the EAW.

So he isn't being charged with a crime but there's a warrant out for his arrest? So basically, they want to question him and can do so by arresting him even though he's under no obligation to talk to them and doesn't have to go with them. On top of that, he's invited them to come and talk to him.

What a load of bullshit.

They have questioned him once, but supposedly have more questions to ask before they can formally charge him and go to trial. People can be arrested to be questioned. The police have legal power to detain someone for that purpose.
What do you mean by "no obligation to talk to them"?

GrahamH wrote:

Teague wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Teague wrote:He also has not been charged with any crime. Is not wanted for any crime afaik and even the alleged "victim" as repeatedly said she was not raped. He is only wanted for questioning? - he is not legally bound to go in for questioning.

He's not been charged, but a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been issued and approved by courts in Sweden and UK for him to be arrested and brought in for questioning. There is no general requirement for such questioning to be done in particular place and it could be done in London, but there is some legal force behind the questioning due to the EAW.

So he isn't being charged with a crime but there's a warrant out for his arrest? So basically, they want to question him and can do so by arresting him even though he's under no obligation to talk to them and doesn't have to go with them. On top of that, he's invited them to come and talk to him.

What a load of bullshit.

They have questioned him once, but supposedly have more questions to ask before they can formally charge him and go to trial. People can be arrested to be questioned. The police have legal power to detain someone for that purpose.
What do you mean by "no obligation to talk to them"?

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.

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.

A vital stage of a prosecution is disclosure.

Disclosure is one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system and the application of proper and fair disclosure is a vital component of a fair criminal justice system. The "golden rule" is that fairness requires full disclosure should be made of all material held by the prosecution that weakens its case or strengthens that of the defence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/atto ... isclosure/

romansh wrote:Just curious ... how would we view this, if Assange was avoiding extradition to Russia rather than the USA?

But he's doing neither.

He'd be as easy to extradite to the USA from the UK as from Sweden, and if there was any great fucking US conspiracy it could have swung into action when he was in Sweden, or he could have been detained in the UK rather than left to sit on bail in a mate's luxury house before he did a runner to the Ecuadorian embassy.

Or had one or more intelligence agencies watching to making sure he didn't do that runner, or have just had a nasty accident, or had a more instantly compelling frame-up in Sweden, or been stabbed in self defence by one of his accusers, or...

You don't have to suppose some grand conspiracy to consider that Assange might have grounds for seeking asylum, or that the UN might have a point.

Alan B wrote:More and more I'm thinking that American money is involved here influencing and using the peculiarities of the Swedish definition of 'rape'. The alleged accusations of 'rape' are just a means to an end as far as the Americans are concerned. Their only object is to get Assange out of the embassy by whatever means. If he puts one foot outside the embassy, the Swedes won't get a look-in; the 'rape' case against him will miraculously disappear - the 'victims' having been paid off.

If 'they' were that desperate to extradite him, and had sufficient evidence to base a request on, it would seem surprising that they let him do a runner from Sweden, stay out on bail much of his time in the UK, and then do a runner to the embassy.

Indeed, if 'they' were that desperate to extradite him from Sweden all along, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Swedish investigation of him wouldn't have been welcome in the first place, since before the accusations were made, he seemed to be happily staying in Sweden out of choice.

And, of course, if 'they' had been desperate to extradite him from the UK, and the Swedes were 'their' servants, the Swedish authorities could have been given the nod and their investigation could have been conveniently concluded at any point during the extended time Assange was in the UK before he did a runner to the embassy.

Very well said, tolman.

I wouldn't be surprised if Assange's convinced himself that this is about avoiding extradition to federal lockup, but regardless, it makes no sense. He chose to visit Sweden; he waited until he'd exhausted legal escape-hatches in the UK before he jumped bail, costing his sureties thousands in the process.* Britain has a famously generous extradition treaty with the USA: why didn't that worry Assange in all those months he spent out on bail?

When you visit a foreign jurisdiction, you choose to put yourself under the power of its justice system. If Assange didn't want to accept that risk, he should never have visited Sweden. Likewise, Wikileaks chose to leak material Assange knew Washington had classified: he may or may not have been justified, but he certainly knew the risks. If he is extradited (still not certain), he brought it on himself, and can't use it as an excuse to evade prosecution in Sweden.

* The fact that a court allowed "sureties" who had no meaningful control over Assange to post his bail money just compounds the absurdity of the decision to release him from custody. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in passing back in the 19th century:-

When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner. In 6 Modern it is said: "The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge."

Assange, by contrast, kicked back in a mansion, and the idea of kindly professors and retirees playing bounty hunter is a Daily Show skit in action.

Byron wrote: he brought it on himself, and can't use it as an excuse to evade prosecution in Sweden.

Is it any different for any other person seeking political asylum?

Byron wrote: Assange, by contrast, kicked back in a mansion, and the idea of kindly professors and retirees playing bounty hunter is a Daily Show skit in action.

Those kindly professors also knew the risks, and presumably thought that either a very weak case would be dropped or they would lose their money in defence of a cause they believed in.
That these people have lost money is entirely beside the point off this topic.
If the prosecution had done their job there would have been no reason for that to happen.

Do you at least acknowledge more that Assange was in continuous detention at least through remand and bail?

Perhaps you think that anyone who will speak up for justice for As Assange does do out of some deluded hero worship, that they must think he is really nice guy and that you pointing out that his actions have cost some nice people a lot of money should overrule the justice issues, or the political importance of wikileaks. I hope you don't think that. Do you?

GrahamH wrote:Do you at least acknowledge more that Assange was in continuous detention at least through remand and bail?

He was certainly in detention during the brief time he was on remand, just like everyone else on remand is.

While he was on bail, choosing to make unsuccessful appeal after appeal, he was no more 'in detention' than anyone else is in similar circumstances.
Indeed, hindsight would suggest he was given excessive freedom, which he abused by running away.

Just as he chose to do a runner to the embassy, he chose to do a runner to the UK.
He wasn't forced to come here, and he didn't get treated worse than a person in his situation could have reasonably expected to be treated before they chose to come here.

GrahamH wrote:
Do you at least acknowledge more that Assange was in continuous detention at least through remand and bail?

Remand takes place in prison and that indeed is detention.
Bail on the other hand is not. It takes place out of prison and aside from a few restrictions such as leaving the country, providing an address, not approaching alleged victims or witnesses for example, the person on bail is at liberty to come and go as they please for the duration of that bail period. They are usually obliged to surrender to a court or police station at the end of the bail period by themselves. It certainly isn't synonymous with being detained.

Glad we're back to the original topic of my OP. Not so glad that people still don't understand the definitions of things like bail, detention, freedom, imprisoned, choice, asylum, consequences, different countries having different language when it comes to what they call criminal charges etc.
Hey hum.

See byrons quote and how it accords with the UN judgment.

Byron wrote:

When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge.

Wierd tapatalk problems

When a country gives asylum to someone, maybe it's time for the other parties involved to start using their brains
for self reflection.

GrahamH wrote:See byrons quote and how it accords with the UN judgment.

Byron wrote:

When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge.

Wierd tapatalk problems

Well I guess by that logic, anyone who has broken the law in the country they live in can consider themselves detained too, even if they haven't encountered a police officer since they too can be seized and delivered to their discharge whenever they choose.

Only problem the UN have with this bit of twisted language is that the UK can't just pick Assange up because he has placed himself out of their reach. That this 'detention' has been so prolonged is due to him being granted the grace to appeal his situation through the lengthy process of the law and clutch at every legal straw available to him first off and then to evade apprehension by holing up in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

He would not be there had he not put himself there. I don't see how any twisting of the definition of the word "detained" makes the fact that all of this has dragged on because Assange is evading actually being detained.

Oh yes, everyone could bend over for him and dance to his jig. The Swedish police could question him at the embassy but you know what? Fuck him, why should they? They applied for and got a European Arrest Warrant to have him detained and extradited. He appealed, several times and lost, then He jumped bail and hid where UK police can't get him. That doesn't make him poorly done by or deserving of sympathy, special treatment or compensation for fucks sake.
I truly hope he is jailed in the UK for breach of his bail conditions before he is extradited to Sweden. If he is found guilty of the sex offences there, I hope he does jail time there too. As for what he did in the USA, if they want him back, they ask whichever country he is in to extradite him and he goes back to face whatever charges they bring.

He has made his own choices in life. Perhaps he might have done things differently had he known what would happen but that is not my concern. Prisons the world over are full of people who might have behaved differently had they realised the consequences of their behaviour. Should we be compensating them and letting them go?

monkeyboy wrote:

GrahamH wrote:See byrons quote and how it accords with the UN judgment.

Byron wrote:

When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge.

Wierd tapatalk problems

Well I guess by that logic, anyone who has broken the law in the country they live in can consider themselves detained too, even if they haven't encountered a police officer since they too can be seized and delivered to their discharge whenever they choose.

These sort of exaggerations are not helping your argument.

Exaggeration? Is it really or is it just misuse of the word "detained"?

monkeyboy wrote:Exaggeration? Is it really or is it just misuse of the word "detained"?

Yes, it really is exaggeration.

At last for now.
If the wet dreams of the surveilence state come true we migh get there yet; that someone commiting a crime under full CCTV coverage can be identified on the act.
Or at least "a" crminal can be linked to "an" identity
and only terrorists (whatever the definitions coveres by then) will think the system is not failsafe.
See "The Final Solution" (2005), Harper Collins, London, ISBN 3-426-62902-X for what I"m talking about here.

Some of you guys are really emotional about this aren't you? It seems to be clouding your judgement.

I'm not emotional at all. I just don't like words being misused and there's a lot of it going on around here.

For example, the word "fugitive" being made synonymous with the word "detained".