General Discussion

struggle4progress

(118,270 posts)

51. Here is something nice for you to read: The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange

Sat Jun 22, 2013, 03:18 AM

Jun 2013

Findings of facts and reasons

... I am satisfied that there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant. The English version of the warrant states that it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. The warrant refers to offences, indicates the relevant provisions of Swedish criminal law; and identifies specific conduct against Mr Assange. There is simply nothing equivocal about the English version of the warrant ... The person who knows whether she wants the defendant for the purpose of being prosecuted is the Swedish prosecutor Ms Ny ... 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 ... I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden ... 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 ... This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape ... However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ... I have already determined the key question. Ms Ny has decided to prosecute ... I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden.

Howard Riddle
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
Appropriate Judge
24th February 2011
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why has the US filed formal charges against Snowden but not against Assange? [View all] Nye Bevan Jun 2013 OP

What do the two have in common? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #1

Assange didn't commit the theft frazzled Jun 2013 #2

Makes sense. Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #4

It's been a while since I read up on it but attorneys cited several things that would stop the okaawhatever Jun 2013 #24

Even though Assange did not steal anything, they may be trying JDPriestly Jun 2013 #53

Snowden is a US citizen, Assange is not. Mr.Bill Jun 2013 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #5

Why don't they file charges against Dick Cheney for Cleita Jun 2013 #6

Richard Armitage first outed Valerie Plame (nt) Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #7

So you have said. But we all know where the buck stops. Cleita Jun 2013 #11

And what charges could they file against Assange? No one has filed charges against Assange. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #8

So the reason he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London is the rape charges, Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #9

Oh, he fears prosecution all right. It is about the rape charge and once in Cleita Jun 2013 #13

He has never been charged with rape, or anything else. There are no charges against Assange. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #14

Sorry, I should have said "accusations", not "charges" (nt) Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #15

Yes, and it's amazing that after three years they still refuse to file charges, which has led the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #18

Unless i'm wrong you have already had swedish law explained to you multiple times on how it differs Bodhi BloodWave Jun 2013 #26

I don't need Swedish law explained to me. I am very familiar with it which is WHY I sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #29

You are familiar with the way you and Julian want it to be treestar Jun 2013 #63

You don't know the law either. So let me repeat it for you. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #69

So if he did not flee, they can still try to extradite him treestar Jun 2013 #71

Why don't they investigate him?? Who is stopping them? Who is stopping them from filing charges? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #73

They can't file charges unless he is returned to Sweden--that's their law. The UK has an MADem Jun 2013 #30

BS, that false claim has been debunked over and over again. They HAVE interviewed people sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37

He's not a witness--he's a person of interest, AKA a suspect, and the claim is not false. MADem Jun 2013 #38

Sweden has interviewed suspects in foreign countries before. The EU facilitates members in this sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #46

THEIR courts have upheld their decisions on this. Last time I checked, Assange wasn't a Swedish MADem Jun 2013 #48

Last time I checked Assange isn't a Swedish citizen and not subject to their courts UNLESS sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #50

No, he's an alleged rapist who committed a crime IN Sweden, an EU member. MADem Jun 2013 #54

If he's only 'alleged', he has not 'committed' a crime, unless you don't understand the word sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #62

I was being polite--I'm not a Swedish judge or a Swedish cop, so I'll say IMO he's a rapist. MADem Jun 2013 #74

"He doesn't get to make the rules." treestar Jun 2013 #58

He's nervy, isn't he? He thinks he can bully his way out of this mess he got himself in, but MADem Jun 2013 #75

Res judicata: the Swedish Prosecution Authority won this point in the UK courts. Despite differences struggle4progress Jun 2013 #45

Wrong. This is simple. Sweden is a member of the EU sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #47

Here is something nice for you to read: The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange struggle4progress Jun 2013 #51

And here is a repeat of the facts. The Swedish Prosecutor has refused all offers to conduct the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #57

UK courts found Sweden wants Assange for a rape prosecution. To argue, about what "questioning" struggle4progress Jun 2013 #66

We are talking about Swedish Law and the false claims made here about it. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #70

After you read my #51, reread my #45: struggle4progress Jun 2013 #52

British Courts have nothing to do with Sweden's laws that permit the Prosecutor to interview sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #64

Swedish prosecutors prosecute their cases in Sweden, not in the UK or various embassies in London struggle4progress Jun 2013 #67

Of course they do. So why has this prosecutor not done so? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #68

Why did UK courts allow for extradition then? treestar Jun 2013 #77

Write King Carl XVI and Queen Elizabeth II! I'm sure they're most eager to hear your thoughts! struggle4progress Jun 2013 #78

Assange didnt' break US law BainsBane Jun 2013 #10

My question is this: If Snowden "didn't reveal anything that wasn't known for years", why charge cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #12

Well, that's going to boggle the minds of those who used the NSA talking point to try to diminish sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #16

three or four? i'd say more. HiPointDem Jun 2013 #17

Well to be honest; I was talking about the most FRANTIC ones LOL. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #20

Well, let's see. Mr Snowden allegedly copied over a thousand documents in the course struggle4progress Jun 2013 #21

I have no doubt he was aware of the gravity of his actions, hence his flight from "justice". cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #22

US code section 793(d) Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #32

The timing wasn't coincidental--he demanded that WAPO publish "within seventy two hours." MADem Jun 2013 #49

He broke the law. He signed saying he wouldn't reveal this info under penalty of law and he did. He okaawhatever Jun 2013 #25

You seriously need to educate yourself when it comes to our criminal justice system Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #31

Questions for you? LOL no. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #33

Good Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #34

Mmmmkay. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #35

LOL Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #36

the nature of that answer was that it's not a new reason for treestar Jun 2013 #61

He stole classified material from the US government and transferred it to a foreign government. MADem Jun 2013 #39

He's being charged with: treestar Jun 2013 #59

The obvious retort is that Mr Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements, whereas Mr Assange did not struggle4progress Jun 2013 #19

The only way I could see Assange being charged is if Manning said "I was working for him and he told MADem Jun 2013 #40

I'd prefer not to speculate too much about possibilities unsupported by any evidence, struggle4progress Jun 2013 #42

Yeah, some folks get very mad when the discussion veers off into questions of guilt or complicity. MADem Jun 2013 #43

but by your logic i could speculate that you were a mass murdering rapist? Monkie Jun 2013 #55

And I could speculate that you're in fact talking about yourself, but you see how silly that is. MADem Jun 2013 #76

Eddie's lawyers could try that defense treestar Jun 2013 #60

Manning could have had a jury trial but opted to waive it struggle4progress Jun 2013 #65

Assange is not a US citizen and did not release material while in US jurisdiction. NaturalHigh Jun 2013 #23

It's not immediately clear to me that a sovereign state can never charge anyone with struggle4progress Jun 2013 #44

I agree. And the internet age may mean electronic transfer of documents makes national borders stevenleser Jun 2013 #72

I thought about that too. NaturalHigh Jun 2013 #79

This may interest you: struggle4progress Jun 2013 #80

Thanks. NaturalHigh Jun 2013 #81

Manning is Snowden's counterpart in the Wikileaks case hack89 Jun 2013 #27

Manning was in the military--he's not "Snowden's counterpart." MADem Jun 2013 #41

He is a US citizen being prosecuted under US law hack89 Jun 2013 #56

The penalties are very different. MADem Jun 2013 #82

But the point is the Snowden and Assange are not the same hack89 Jun 2013 #84

I agree with you in that regard. Assange is a shit stirrer, but he hasn't broken US law. MADem Jun 2013 #85

Perhaps you gave the answer MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #28

Because if the U.S. does charge Assange Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #83