Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Autumnlicious]

Funny how you think that it is funny that I need a clarification of what these terms mean.

Let me post some acronyms of german legal terms and see how you manage to put the correct definition to them.

If you bother to fucking mention them in the context of the relevant quoted sections in the SAME thread and SAME topic as I have, then yes, the expectation is that I can follow along.

Or at least not embarass myself by listing out several unrelated acronyms to the TOPIC at hand before "suddenly" figuring it out.

How disingenuous of you.

On 18 November 2010 the Stockholm District Court upheld an arrest warrant against Assange.

You're being disingenous again.

Article 1-1 states for purposes of prosecution.

In order to proceed with criminal prosecution, he must be charged. End of.

There is no gradiation.

The fact that the Swedish authorities must have one (1) more round of questioning before formally charging is interesting, but besides the point.

The protocol dictates ONLY for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (or serving a sentence).

You're wilfully conflating "arrest warrant" with "European Arrest Warrant", which is improper.

Furthermore, you're attempting to use the intent of the Swedish authorities to override the specific terms of the legislation.

Under Swedish law, criminal proceedings cannot take place until formal charging. (Formal charging can take place in absentia, my thick headed friend...)

That is the SAME in EVERY western country.

You would allow for ignorance of the protocols under EAW to have the spirit of the Law bypass the letter of the Law.

I should remind you that the "spirit of the Law" also overrode the rights of the Egyptian defendants post-9/11.

Tell me, Mr German, about how a country can ignore the letter of the Law to target those they feel are within the crosshairs for the "spirit" of the Law?

I would love to hear about how... certain countries in the past have abused their own legislation to allow for some... fun things.

It therefor is irrelevant if he has not been charged and is simply wanted for questioning.

It is not. Arrest warrant in Sweden != European Arrest Warrant.

Part of the reason why the legislation has certain "outs" for countries to refuse extradition is in recognition of abuses of EAW that would allow for a country to hold citizens from another country accountable to the former's laws even outside the former's jurisdiction.

There is an arrest warrant, issued by the swedish prosecution. Arrest warrants can be issued while the investigation is ongoing and charges have not jet been set.

Ah, but that is not allowed by Article 1-1.

If you bothered to comprehend, the EAW is crystal clear.

As I noted, defendants in Sweden or other countries can be formally charged in absentia.

Formal charging means that criminal prosecution is to occur.

You're being deliberately dense about this.

Leave it to a German to let their desire for intent override interpretation of the Law to the letter of the Law.

Assange is not simply wanted for questioning - he is wanted for arrest.

Under Swedish Law, they must question him and proceed to formally charging him for criminal prosecution -OR- charge him in absentia.

They can "wish" for his arrest all they want.

But they're abusing the letter of the Law.

And I find it considerably troubling that on the #1 case in the world that tests the Law, you continually support sloppy overrides of the very legislation that is meant to protect from specific abuses.

Like mentioned before, sweden does not simply want him for "questioning"

There is an arrest warrant issued against him.

Therefor this does not simply require an interview - it requires an arrest.

They have to formally charge him, which transitions a person from "suspect" into falling under the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings.

When Ecuador offers the interview to be conducted within the embessys ground - it is ignoring the arrest warrant and simply using the phrases within the swedish code of law it sees as fitting.

Just like you ignore the code of Law that defines an EAW to allow for a state to simply issue an arrest warrant without placing a defendant into the jurisdiction of a criminal prosecution?

Ecuador does not define swedish law, neighter does it have the right to execute swedish law or to act on it`s behalf - without the concent of the swedish goverment or by simply ignoring the rulings of the swedish court

Ecuador did not sign onto the European Arrest Warrant legislation. Sweden and others have no right to interfere in Ecuadorian sovereignty.

The only thing Ecuador can do is provide assistence through existing legal frameworks and treaties with Sweden.

Assistence which, so far, has placed Ecuador into a better light for "offering" than Sweden has for "refusing" said assistence.

I'd also like to point out this: of the evidence submitted, at least one (1) of the condoms provided had no DNA on them.

Looks like Sweden, as showing good faith in these matters, isn't doing a very good job.

But do not make it a inlegitemate institution.

Show me where the so-called high court can pass binding actions against a member state, as well as proof that the high profile illegal extraditions of the Egyptian nationals resulted in a binding action against Sweden.

If not on both cases, the "high court" is effectively powerless and useless (just another example of Europe doing a half-arsed job, just like their space program...).

It states: "for the purpose of criminal persecution".
Which does not mean that charges already have to be set for the persecution to demand an arrest warrant or\and extradition.

Actually, criminal proceedings can only occur if the suspect is charged.

Assange is not charged. He is still a suspect.

I didn`t ignore anything, I wasn`t well informed and had to look into the details and was at first to lazy to do so.

Look again.