Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Autumnlicious]

I will just take it as if you mean European Arrest Warrant.

I wonder if reading the surrounding context no less than a few posts away would have given you that idea...

And there I will have to ask: Are you certain that an arrest warant cannot be put out for an individual for questioning under Swedish law?

1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

REF: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU...584:EN:NOT

I remember writing this:

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]

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]

If you can point out to me that under Swedisch law a arrest warrent cannot be put out for a individual who isn`t jet charged, but is only wanted for questioning.
Then I will agree that something smells fishy.

That is irrelevant -- you cannot put out an EAW for the purposes of conducting an investigation. Only for serving a sentence or conducting a prosecution. End of.

Frankly, I dont know if under Swedish law an arrest warrant for the purpose of simply questioning a uncharged individual can be put out.
And I dont know if such an arrest warrant will be accepted by the european high court and gains the status of a european wide arrest warrent - which is determined by the european high court and not by Sweden.

Frankly, the european high court is a institution which for a very long time has insured that nations do not violate human rights - therefor if the warrant is accepted by the european high court as legitemate I dought that it is fishy.

Interesting use of "long time". It allows you the slippery-ness of claiming that a set of rights violations are such a small number while at the same time conveying the false concept of longevity for the so-called European high-court, which is remarkably young.

If you can show me that this process is in violation of the swedish law or the standard set by the european high court, then I will accept that.

I outlined the discontinuity between the actual legislation allowing for European Arrest Warrants and the intricacies of Swedish Law. It's fairly obvious the protocol here -- formally charge the man for the purposes of conducting a criminal trial. It has been stated that questioning can take place under mutual legal assistance (MLA) laws.

That would perfectly fit the terms of an EAW.

It's questionable that the basic tenants of the legislation being utilized is not being filled out to the letter in one of the world's most high profile cases.

I find it interesting that you wish to ignore that/