Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Something completely different]

Article 1-1 on principles states:

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.

So first of, the phrase:

ONLY for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

doesn`t apply since extradition can also be demanded to execute a sentence.

And far more relevant here

detention order

Meaning: arrest warrant.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU...84:en:HTML

Therefor extradition due to a european arrest warrant can be legaly done for the porpuse of questioning - when there is an arrest warrant.

The european legislation doesn`t say - that charges have to be set for a extradition to be legaly carried out.

Under Swedish law, criminal proceedings cannot take place until formal charging.

Until now you didn`t post a single link showing this part of swedish legislation. Please do so, and dont ignore, just like you did with the european legislation on extradition the possibility of a detention order.

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.

I have said before that this case represents an unfortunate exception out of which it would be foolish to conclude that laws in europe are generaly ignored.
This exception does not justify to think that european law is generaly ignored by european nations.

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

I have pointed out above that a european arrest warrant can be given even if the country in which the person is wanted has a detention order out for him and is not jet prosecuted.

Then you state that under swedish law:

Under Swedish law, criminal proceedings cannot take place until formal charging.

Without pointing to the specific part of legislation showing this.

You seem to be confused and not capable of deciding which one is invalid

Is it the european arrest warrant or the swedish one?

I have shown you the piece of legislation which makes the european arrest warrant legaly acceptable.

Show me the pieces of legislation which make the swedish arrest warrant inlegitemate - then you might convince me.

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

indeed it is crystal clear:

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.

1. A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.

2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:
.
.
.
- rape,
.

and then again:

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.

where is that legislature in swedish law? you write about it but cant show it.

And where do I support "sloppy overrides"??

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

again, where is the swedish legislature which says that?!

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?

Even if I would ignore something. It doesn`t justify Ecuadors ignorance for the arrest warrant.

The detention order was aproved by the swedish high court and aslong as you cannot point out that a detention order requires the prosecution to be set, you didn`t point out any conflict with swedish law.
let alone with european law which clearly says that a "detention order" (arrest warrant) is enought for extradition to be legal.

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.

the treaties are irrelevant. Point is, Ecuador can not tell or even sugest to Sweden no matter how "good" it`s intentions are.

And I would like to point out that the intentions from a country which is number 104 on the free press index (where as Sweden is number 12) are questionable.
That journalists under the rule of Rafeal Correa have been silence, due to laws passed by him, which violate Ecuadors international human rights obligations, by making it legal to prossecute, arrest and imprison journalists who critizise the President and goverment - by giving it the legal term "defamation".
Further more oposition figures in Ecuador have been arrested due to "terrorism laws" which make it possible to arrest and sentence people who supposedly "cause violence".

So much to Assanges pledge to free speech.

And to think that such a country should somehow have any kind of say, in matters of another countries laws and about their integrity or even pose as some kind of light figure and defender of free speech is revolting and just outright disgusting!

Not only is it fact that Sweden is legaly on a better and more sufisticated level than Ecuador but it is fact that Ecuador has no right whatsoever to interfere with Swedish law. It can only say yes or no to the requested extradition not more and not less. But chose to pose arround with Assange so the President can underline how "antiimperialist" he is for the upcoming election.

But I guess such facts are ignored by the brainless zombie army of Assange followers.

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.

to point two, the condom and the DNA.

It is to the prosecution to make the case and not to the public.
And is for the defence to argue against that case and not for the public.
And it is for the judge to make the final verdict and not for the public.

Assange can defend himself in a swedish court with all the rights guaranteed to him under swedish juristiction once he has overturned himself.

If the charges are proven to be baseless - he will be set free.

If not - he goes to jail.

No matter how much of the evidence the state attorney has, sickers out to the public and no matter what opinion the public has of these, it is not to the public to make the courts decision - that would be mob rule and even worse mob law.

Show me where the so-called high court can pass binding actions against a member state,

I am having problems finding examples and explainations in english language.

You must understand that the high court is independent from the european union, it can only appeal to the european union to issue sanctions which hardly ever happened since it was hardly ever necessery.
The high court itself can only fine payments to be made to damaged individuals, defend individuals, and overrule decisions by nations which break set standards.

there`s a german e book on how they work:

http://books.google.at/books?id=oBH1XGd6...of&f=false


Here is example of decisions by the european high court which impacted the policies of certain nations.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/1...2120120313

and here is a specific example which shows how sanctions are undertaken in the specific case of belarus:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees...file=73753

When a membernation breaks the standards set by the european high court, the court at first appeals to that nation to overrule the decision, then a fine (usualy a 6 zeros number) is demanded,, then the european high court starts a trial against the member nation in defence of the individual damaged, then it can appeal to the european parlament for sanctions to be set up.

The european parlament then has to vote on these.

as well as proof that the high profile illegal extraditions of the Egyptian nationals resulted in a binding action against Sweden.

They didn`t. And I dont find this ok. But you shouldnt forget that the main perpetrator in these cases was the US goverment and that most european nations where outright lied to or not even informed, let alone the european union or the european high court.

I only know of individual cases.
I know that Individuals in Germany sued the German state for not sueing the US and for not protecting them from abduction.
I know that a judge in Italy convicted 22 suspected cia operatives and an air force pilot in 2009.

And I know of a ruling in 2007 by the european commitee of human rights which pointed the US out as main offender, critizised some european nations and critizised the US administration very sharply for beind dishonest about it`s doings in europe. And that it demanded:

The dismantling by the US of its system of detentions and transfers.
A review of bilateral agreements between Council of Europe member states and the US, particularly on the status of US forces stationed in Europe and on the use of military and other instrastructures, to ensure they conform to international human rights norms.
Official apologies and compensation for victims of illegal detentions against whom no formal accusations, nor any court proceedings, have ever been brought
An international initiative, expressly involving the United States, to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat which conforms to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

the european parlament also had it`s investigation which in it`s concluding statement:

Denounces the lack of co-operation of many member states and of the Council of the European Union with the investigation;
Regrets that European countries have been relinquishing control over their airspace and airports by turning a blind eye or admitting flights operated by the CIA which, on some occasions, were being used for illegal transportation of detainees;
Calls for the closure of [the US military detention mission in] Guantanamo and for European countries immediately to seek the return of their citizens and residents who are being held illegally by the US authorities;
Considers that all European countries should initiate independent investigations into all stopovers by civilian aircraft [hired by] the CIA;
Urges that a ban or system of inspections be introduced for all CIA-operated aircraft known to have been involved in extraordinary rendition.

Almoust every nation in Europe was involved in this and in almoust every nation in Europe there have been illegal abductions, and in Rumania there has also been torture. So there would be binding actions against every nation in europe by every nation in europe.

It was a collective failure.

Some nations such as Germany started investigations into the matter but it was revealed (ironicaly by wikileaks) that after the investigation they were pressured by the US to not prosecute anyone.

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...).

By the way, why do you point your finger at us!? At least we had comitees, investigations, rulings and individual cases against the perpetrators! It is your country that started this mess in the first place, and neighter Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield are being investigated, nore have there been any investigations into this shady buisness!!!

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

Assange is not charged. He is still a suspect.

And there is an arrest warrant out for that suspect.

In any case, unless the Ecuadorian embassy is violated or Assange gives himself up, we're not likely to see anything change any time soon.

Dont be so sure. Rafael Correa is only using him to boost his anti american image during the election. He might loose interest in him after that.

Either way, Wikileaks will continue, hopefully with the lesson that if you're going to piss off powerful people, don't be carefree with your dick.

Did you actualy read the leaks? I would consider 60 percent of them usefull.
Sure there are things amongst them which the public should have know, especialy that Hillary Clinton was telling diplomats to activly spy.
But there is nothing which a good investigative journalist couldn`t have uncovered. Other than that diplomacy depends to a great extent on confidentiality.

Further more, privacy depends on the right to give things secret. Which is something that doesn`t exist in Assanges utopia of a voyeuristic tabloid sociaty.