Just for reference for foreingers, ABC stands for the australian broadcast corporation (basically australia's BBC) and this is their investigative journalism and current affairs program (though they do sometimes air outside produced documentaries, this doesn't appear to be the case with this video, I could be wrong but I recognise the journalist, and it would say so at the start of the video, rather than just having a brief logo. I'm not 100% on this but).

Edit: I was right http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2...549280.htm It's their own reporters.
I will admit that the image on the video before it starts playing is cheap and tacky, don't know where it came from (maybe the youtube uploader?), the moment you start the video the video quality is much higher than you would expect from that image.

The 41 min bit Daniel seems to be referring to is the mention of Muhammed el-zari and Ahmed Agiza, sweden to egypt extradition (with heavy US involvement apparently, CIA plane and it was at their request). The video shows the cover of an Amnesty International report on the pair, entitled "The case of Mohammed Eli Zari and Ahmed Agiza: violations of fundamental human rights by Sweden confirmed". I seem to have found the link to it, here http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR42/001/2006 though I've not yet read it, do your own research. (edit: reading it now, interesting stuff...)

The video says that the UN ruled against sweden in this case, and sweden later had to pay compensations. (yah for after the fact wrist slaps, would do Julian Assange a great deal of good I'm sure).

Germans, though Daniel's responses have not been as mature as they could have been (e.g., HAHAHAHAHAHA) the outright dismissal of the evidence Daniel provided seems to me to be inappropriate.

Quote:Because they cannot guarentee that the US will not attempt to extradite him in the future. That is why.

His demand is unrealistic and practically impossible.

He's not asking for a guarantee from Sweden that America won't try, he's asking for a guarantee from Sweden that they will tell America where they can shove their request. If they really won't extradite him, then they can make the guarantee surely. It seems to me that he's doing the smart thing here.

And bugger that "laws are there to be obeyed" nonsense. Irelands blasphemy law?* Australia's can't insult the gaming minster cause he's a big sook law? America's draft? I can't think of a country that doesn't have at least a few laws I wouldn't happily ignore.

*What happened with that anyway, they still have that?

TGAC -- You're wrong with respect to Sweden being bound to the vaunted ideal of European justice.

If not, then please explain the following:

Quote:This haste circumvented all procedural rules and deprived the detainees and their lawyers of all opportunity to question the reasons, to verify the correctness of the information underlying the decisions, or to supply corrections or additional information. The men and their lawyers were never allowed to learn about the accusations against them on which the security services based their recommendation. For example, it appears that the government believed they had obtained a letter from the Egyptian authorities with clear promises of respecting the human rights of the men. When the letter was later disclosed, it turned out to promise only that they would be treated in accordance with Egypt's constitution and law. When Sweden later tried to do some follow-up on the issue, the agreement in the letter proved woefully inadequate. This could have been discovered before the deportation, quite independent of the different views of the actual danger the men posed to Sweden, and would almost certainly have been discovered had due process rules been observed.

This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The United Nation's Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery a breach of Sweden's obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into. The primary ground was the obvious and well known risk of torture to which Alzery was exposed. The immediate execution of the deportation decision was also found to breach Sweden's obligation to ensure the deportation could be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee, especially since Alzery's lawyer had previously announced his determination to appeal any negative decision to the Committee. In Agiza's case, the UN Committee on Torture reached similar conclusions.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriatio...ad_al-Zery

In short, they violated their own great "laws" regarding the treatment of prisoners and extradition.

They could have waited several days as the law requires to attain the necessary information, but they did not.

I wouldn't trust Sweden to handle a high profile sexual offense when they cannot handle low-mid profile extradition requests properly in accordance with their own laws.

(December 9, 2012 at 9:42 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: It doesn`t matter if you care or not. Law is law.

I was only following orders, eh TGAC?

You're right -- any unjust law, by virtue of being a law, must be followed to the letter.

By that token, I declare myself an offender under UN and US conventions regarding the use of prohibited substances.

That must mean I deserve losing life, home and reputation! Isn't "the law is the law" so grand?! /s

(December 9, 2012 at 9:42 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: The entire point is, he has nothing to fear because sweden does not extradite to the US.

And again: show me an example where sweden is the US`s bitch?

I did, Daniel did, Stue Denim did.

The ball is in your court, so to speak.

@Daniel, still waiting "Oh and there are clear examples of Sweden doing what the USA wants in other cases.".

The Mohammed El Zari and Ahmed Agiza event did occur in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. I am not making excuses for the Swedish government(they fucked up, I don't think I could find a government which hasn't) but context is important.

After what happened with David Hicks, I would not trust the US government to treat Australians fairly and our government(Australia) to protect are citizens human rights while in US hands.

(December 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: TGAC -- You're wrong with respect to Sweden being bound to the vaunted ideal of European justice.

If not, then please explain the following:

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriatio...ad_al-Zery

In short, they violated their own great "laws" regarding the treatment of prisoners and extradition.

They could have waited several days as the law requires to attain the necessary information, but they did not.

I wouldn't trust Sweden to handle a high profile sexual offense when they cannot handle low-mid profile extradition requests properly in accordance with their own laws.

I could simply nitpick and state, that the two offenders didn`t have to fear the death penalty - but that would be dishonest since the european high court also forbids the extradition into countries which torture.

But it is true, in the wake of 9\11, not only Sweden, but also Poland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Czech republic and the UK ignored the European high court of justice.

There have been appologies in the aftermaph, but I addmit that it is a black stain on the credibility of the european justice system. And theoreticaly every individual who was victim in such cases can prosecute the goverment which has ignored their rights - which in some cases has happened.

To explain further, The European high court is a regulatory institution which surveils the high courts and justice systems of every european nation and has a standert set of basic laws which have to be abided by all member nations to prevent undemocratic decisions. It can impose sanctions against a nation which then have to be followed by every other member nation. It did ignore some cases, but mainly wasn`t even informed since most european nations extradited terror suspects in secrecy without.

I guess you know exactly aswell as I do, that in the wake of 9\11 it took not only the courts and goverments but also the general public untill 2003 to realise that terror suspects, also have human rights.
It is unfortunate that Europe ignored it`s rules during this time - but this exception does not prove a generaly repeating theme in which european nations ignore their constitutions.

One might aswell argue that every offender in the US has to fear waterbording - simply because it happened in the wake og 9/11.

Quote:I was only following orders, eh TGAC?

Quote:You're right -- any unjust law, by virtue of being a law, must be followed to the letter.

By that token, I declare myself an offender under UN and US conventions regarding the use of prohibited substances.

That must mean I deserve losing life, home and reputation! Isn't "the law is the law" so grand?! /s

No.

Laws should be constantly evaluated, to see if they are just. One can still debate if the swedish laws on sexual offences are just.
But in order to do so, one will have to give arguments and most importent of all - one has to be specific.
Sweden interduced it`s strickt laws for sexual offences after it`s conservative goverment realised that Sweden was the nation in Europe in which most sexual offences were comitted.

You can always question laws. But to equate laws of a specific category with another is a bit dishonest.

You cannot compare the category of "sexual offence" with the category of "substance abuse" because both cover completly different "offences" and therefor need different experts and different studies to be reevaluated and questions.

Laws are the same in the sence that they are provided to give a narrative on what can be done.

But since they cover different ereas of sociaty have to be questioned and used by different experts and studies.

Furthermore - it must be underlined that the sexual assault charges against Assange were not instegated to have him arrested by the swedish goverment - NO, swedens laws on sexual offences are generaly very strickt.

Quote:I did, Daniel did, Stue Denim did.

The ball is in your court, so to speak.

No so far only you and Stue Denim did with the post 9/11 terror example.

I did not watch the video provided, because I`d rather read the facts than have them presented through the views of a certain opinion.

(December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I guess you know exactly aswell as I do, that in the wake of 9\11 it took not only the courts and goverments but also the general public untill 2003 to realise that terror suspects, also have human rights.

I'm a bit skeptical as to what could dissolve U.S. influence in these matters.

I'd like to vary the system by diverting off to the MegaUpload (Kim Dotcom) case, showcasing the illegal destruction of a business and detention under dubious circumstances, noting that the unjust acts occurred anyways and in recent memory.

Ignoring that, let's mosey on...

(December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: It is unfortunate that Europe ignored it`s rules during this time - but this exception does not prove a generaly repeating theme in which european nations ignore their constitutions.

An untested assumption.

(December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: One might aswell argue that every offender in the US has to fear waterbording - simply because it happened in the wake og 9/11.

We still operate Guantanamo Bay. One prisoner who won his freedom a few years back died recently in detention.

Care to argue for the US being a fair and just warden?

(December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Laws should be constantly evaluated, to see if they are just. One can still debate if the swedish laws on sexual offences are just.
But in order to do so, one will have to give arguments and most importent of all - one has to be specific.
Sweden interduced it`s strickt laws for sexual offences after it`s conservative goverment realised that Sweden was the nation in Europe in which most sexual offences were comitted.

That is irrelevant.

Assange is not charged. We covered this a month back with Tino.

The laws are very clear -- extradition only applies in cases of either being charged or convicted.

Quote:An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_arrest_warrant

However, Swedish authorities claim:

Quote:Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence.[65] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations,[66] including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions.[67]

This directly contradicts the purpose of a EAW, which explicitly states for criminal prosecution.

Assange is not formally charged and thus not eligible for criminal prosecution.

Furthermore, "Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions", however:

Quote:Since 19 June 2012, Assange lives in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he had asked for and was granted political asylum.[61] Ecuador offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to question Assange at the Embassy in London, but this was turned down by the Swedish prosecutors.[62] Assange has claimed he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States[63] but the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[64]

So, all in all, we have:
1) A state (Sweden) that does not formally charge suspects until additional questioning
2) Formally charged suspects are eligible for EAW
3) A state (Sweden) that allows for additional questioning via Mutual Legal Assistance provisions to allow for formal charging
4) A state (Sweden) that will not take advantage of point 3 while demanding points 1 and 2.

(December 9, 2012 at 10:59 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Because they cannot guarentee that the US will not attempt to extradite him in the future. That is why.

His demand is unrealistic and practically impossible.

It may be a stunt, but that's not the main topic here which is the heavy handed way in which this case is being handled by Sweden and the UK, and the fact that the UK is not recognizing his legal status as a political refugee.

(December 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Just for reference for foreingers, ABC stands for the australian broadcast corporation ...

Thanks for that, it was 1:30 AM and I was tired as hell, so I didn't bother posting any links that I should have, I found the 4 Corners program and posted it, as far as I'm concerned Germans could have easily done what you did which was look up the referenced material in the program (I could have done it as well, but not at 1:30AM!)

(December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: One might aswell argue that every offender in the US has to fear waterbording - simply because it happened in the wake og 9/11.

No Germans, it's not that at all. You've missed the entire point of it all. The USA and most other western countries, has a totally corrupted justice system which punishes the least fortunate individuals, and allows powerful people (especially those in government or government agencies like the CIA) to totally forgoes justice. As Waratah said, just look at the treatment of David Hicks for example. I don't like the guy at all, Hicks was involved in stuff that was probably criminal, but all they could put on him was "material support for terrorism" which is a totally bogus charge of course.

I've been asking for years, and year now when will George W Bush, Barrack Obama, Dick Cheney, etc, etc, face criminal prosecution under the un convention against torture which the USA signed and ratified? Oh wait, that's right, because those criminals are too powerful, too rich for the arms of justice to reach. I'm not leftwing, so don't talk to me as if I'm some crackpot humanitarian, I'm not. I call it how I see it Germans.

(December 10, 2012 at 1:19 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: An untested assumption.

good, then we agree on that point.

Quote:We still operate Guantanamo Bay. One prisoner who won his freedom a few years back died recently in detention.

Care to argue for the US being a fair and just warden?

Not the point. Point being: Only because there was waterbording - this doesn`t mean that every prison inmate is at risk of being waterborded.

Only because the european hight court of justice let down it`s principles in the wake of 9\11 this doesn`t mean that it will repeatedly and always do so.

US a just warden? I do not know much about prison conditions in the US.

What I do know for sure - is that every person of whom a nation demands extradition - who could face the death penalty or torture, is not extradited.



Ok.
The European high court forbids the extradition to countries which threaten the extradited person with the death penalty.
So why can Sweden not give a guarantee?
Because Sweden is a independent country with it`s own independent justice system - which is only surveiled by the european high court.
Assange can only get a guarantee by the European high court of justice that it will set up sanctions against Sweden in the case of his extradition.

So Sweden cannot give a legal guarantee.

And most importent of all, why should it? A nation and it`s juristiction shouldn`t be the playball of any individual. Which is why I also understand why Sweden turned down the offer by Ecuador to hold the questioning within the embessy.

And where are the laws clear? Can you point that out to me?

There is no such thing as a standard for extradition in international law, if one can be extradited or not depends on individual treaties between the nations.

Quote: And most importent of all, why should it? A nation and it`s juristiction shouldn`t be the playball of any individual. Which is why I also understand why Sweden turned down the offer by Ecuador to hold the questioning within the embessy.

And a nation shouldn't play sillybuggers with it's own laws or extradite people where they face torture (and it's not been more than a decade since that incident). Given their (very recent) past, I hardly see asking for a such a guarantee as an unreasonable request, they are not at the moment very trustworthy. Now Sweden may be unable to give such a guarantee (not because it's independent, as independence, along with a solid history, would be a prerequisite to being able to give a guarantee worth a damn) because of it's own laws (and fair enough, it should follow it's own just laws*, if only it were consistent) but it does have other avenues that it can legally pursue (that moros has pointed out), such as the interview.

*the prohibition against judicial decisions being predetermined, a very reasonable law.

Going off of Moros's info:

But pointing to this law would seem to indicate that extradition is an option. You could ask for a guarantee from a country asking that they won't literally crucify you if you came in for questioning, how many would point to laws that say they can't predetermine cases, how many would point to their own laws and agreements showing how they are prohibited from executing or torturing people? If Swedish law ruled out any chance of him being extradited to the US, they would surely just point to that. That they can't and won't is a worrying sign. If he was asking for a guarantee that sweden wouldn't personally torture him, I don't doubt they would say "we can't torture you, look at these laws that prohibit us from doing so" rather than "oh sorry, we can't predetermine these things, look at these laws that stop us from predetermining judicial decisions."

Were I in his position (and I find the whole thing very very suss) I would stay well away from Sweden.

So why is it worrying?

Is there any reasonable ground suggesting that Assange will be extradited to the US, as soon as he is on Swedish soil?

These kind of guarantees are not given by nations and there haven`t been any conspiracies before this case.
Assange is simply making a show.

I feel that I answered those questions in my previous posts (minus the "as soon as he is on swedish soil", the timing is hardly the issue). Admittedly I do post and then edit as I can never get it quite right and am never happy with the way it reads, and your post is one minute before my final edit. Still, I refer you to my above posts.