I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK.
As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work?
I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society.
edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
I don't think it's unreasonable to give Assange 50 weeks for skipping bail. He was given every opportunity, he pleaded his case right up to the highest court in the land, and once he didn't get what he wanted? He decided he could opt-out of the justice system. It's not like he surrender himself either, he got turfed out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I don't think I could find a better example of where someone should face the absolute maximum penalty for skipping bail. We will never know the merits of the rape cases because of his actions. As for holding him solitary confinement I could definitely understand how a prison warden would decide to do that with a high profile prisoner such as Assange. It's also worth noting that he's not actually in solitary confinement now.
As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious. It's not like there's no journalists who are sympathetic to Assange. I understand it's obviously in the interests of the defence to delay and claim they don't have enough time and information, but that doesn't necessarily make it some human rights issue, it could simply be that that is a strategy they're using to delay the decision. It's clear the judge is not convinced that Assange has been denied proper representation, and if he is, why aren't there any articles in any of our press saying "Here are the 10 times Assange's laywers got turned away". Do you understand where I'm coming from here. It sort of works for Assange to claim that the perfectly ordinary restrictions on visitation are some massive overbearing conspiracy to deprive him of liberty, it doesn't necessarily make it true.
I like to grab my state propaganda from the BBC, so i visit it a few times a day.. ive not seen anything about the assange hearing there at all.. so why do you expect to hear about the details of his complaints there.. i mean why is this the article that HN is linking to?
In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Also if 50 weeks is standard is it right to only allow 15 mins to prepare a defence? Not just keep him on remand in the mean time? A high profile case questioning his right to asylum should be rushed like that? And why max security and solitary confinement? Are our prisons and border securities so weak we need to go to such lengths? I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost? Asshole or not he is no terrorist or mass murder, i recon i could kick the crap out him and trust me i am not tough.
And as far as i can gather (may be wrong but looking for info) he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it. He even told them of his intentions to leave the country.
The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.. he also was offering remote interviews or ones in london.
But at a high level your statements dont hold for me as there is clear evidence that the governments involved are up to dodgey things, so its absolutley fine for him to seek asylum etc.
I'm not limiting myself to the BBC, I'm saying any of the newspapers, any half decent news source.
>In the article his solicitor seems to be referring to a lack of ability to prepare and doesnt seem to have been pulled up on any specifcs not being true?
Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:
>But Baraitser refused the defence request, saying she had previously offered Assange’s lawyers an opportunity to adjourn the hearing to give them more time to deal with the new US indictment. That had been declined.
So actually that's not quite as clear cut as we were meant to beleive, they'd been previously offered more time and had refused.
>And why max security and solitary confinement?
Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
>I would have thought house arrest would probably have done it, yes survailance wpuld cost but how kuch does solitary confinment cost?
Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
>he did actually go along with the police requests in sweden and volunteered repeatedly to give a statement or be interviewed but was denied it.
See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
>The lack of cooperation apparently came when he got wind of the US wanting to extrodite him, and had sweden agreed not to extrodite him he would have returned for the interviews.
The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
you are right the guardian is only a half decent news source, its also half shit.
>Let me be more specific then, in the Guardian reporting we don't only hear from the defence lawyer - we hear the judge's response:.
from the guardian article:
"Explaining the short delay to the start of proceedings, Fitzgerald said this had been the first time in six months he had managed to see his client."
no one contested this.
>Again, because there's not great reporting, I don't know a certain answer to this, but it has been mentioned that he was put in solitary because there were fears over his safety in general population. He has since been moved out of solitary.
so skipping over the max security part and making something up about his own safety.. i mean safety from who? the people who dont like him are governments - you saying he might have been epstiened? or are you saying he is a nonce? in which case why not just put him with the other nonces?
>Oh come on now, he's got a history of absconding.
"
Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials?
This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutor’s office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.
And then?
The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.
>See, this is another of those one-sided stories you hear from Assange's defenders. It's more complicated than that, Sweden wanted him to return so they can interview him (and possibly charge him) and he refused, instead saying he would be willing to let them come to the UK to question him. Suspects in crimes don't get to make those demands.
"
But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation?
That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.
>The law doesn't work like that, Sweden can't just discard their international extradition treaties because Assange wants them to. By making that demand he has basically said there is no possibility of him complying. It's interesting though because there is literally no reason to think that Sweden would be more willing to extradite Assange than the UK.
"
Was that even a realistic scenario?
Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed over two asylum applicants, both of whom were registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any legal proceedings. The abuse already started at the Stockholm airport, where they were mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. We don’t know if they were the only such cases. But we are aware of these cases because the men survived. Both later filed complaints with UN human rights agencies and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay each of them half a million dollars in damages.
"
"
What is your view of the demand made by Assange’s lawyers?
Such diplomatic assurances are a routine international practice. People request assurances that they won’t be extradited to places where there is a danger of serious human rights violations, completely irrespective of whether an extradition request has been filed by the country in question or not. It is a political procedure, not a legal one. Here’s an example: Say France demands that Switzerland extradite a Kazakh businessman who lives in Switzerland but who is wanted by both France and Kazakhstan on tax fraud allegations. Switzerland sees no danger of torture in France, but does believe such a danger exists in Kazakhstan. So, Switzerland tells France: We’ll extradite the man to you, but we want a diplomatic assurance that he won’t be extradited onward to Kazakhstan. The French response is not: «Kazakhstan hasn’t even filed a request!» Rather, they would, of course, grant such an assurance. The arguments coming from Sweden were tenuous at best. That is one part of it. The other, and I say this on the strength of all of my experience behind the scenes of standard international practice: If a country refuses to provide such a diplomatic assurance, then all doubts about the good intentions of the country in question are justified. Why shouldn’t Sweden provide such assurances? From a legal perspective, after all, the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with Swedish sex offense proceedings.
>from the guardian article: "Explaining the short delay to the start of proceedings, Fitzgerald said this had been the first time in six months he had managed to see his client."
>no one contested this.
Well yeah, because why would anyone contest this? If the lawyer says he hasn't bothered to visit his client, that's down to him and his client.
Court isn't reddit, you don't get to contest everything the opposition says line by line.
>On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden,
You're missing the point- He absconded whilst bailed in the UK. Which is a hell of a sight more relevant to his bail status in the UK.
> As for the rumours and claims about seeing his lawyers, I don't have a strong view on it, since the claims seem quite weird and unsubstantiated. I've looked and I can't find any actual reliable reporting on whether he is being denied real representation and I find that suspicious.
You're calling his lawyer a liar and stating his statements about whether or not he's been given access to his client are unreliable.
I can read Svenska, and I've been a lay judge in the District Court of Oslo, Norway for many years, so I know a thing or two about Scandinavian court proceedings. At best the link is inconclusive. At worst it proves conspiracy. Whatever the case, just adding papers to an already undertaken interrogation, could either falsify the original interrogation, or make it unusable in court. Further more, it could implicate the signatory, and that is of course why the one party has reservations against doing it. If there's visible tampering, the interrogation could be dismissed by court. And if not, they could be prosecuting based off false evidence. As for the party responsible for such tampering, she could at worst go to jail for document forgery, at best she'd be reprimanded for not being vigilant enough. So I'd say that's pretty damning. Otherwise I tend to agree with the Swede tpmx, who thinks these kinds of things are better explained by legal experts.
I agree he has his own motivations etc. And was already taking his info with a pinch of salt.
It still looks to me like some of the major elements dont add up, like the release of info to the police, the dropping of the case in sweden, the lack of guarantee to not extrodite to the US. Could just be own biases but given the other information we have about the governments involved it seems most plauable that they are up to no good.
If they are all acting in good faith and this apparent abuse of power is a side effect of their secrecy then i think its just as damning of the overall processes and approach we take (unless we dont really qant an open democracy)
As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.