Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Autumnlicious]

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...

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.

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?

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.

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:

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:

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.