No DNA On Assange's Alleged Torn Condom

[Jaysyn]

I've also read this in the news (don't remember where, it was linked off of Google News), but Sweden has already shown blatant disregard for their own law as well as international law regarding extradition.

That sounds like great evidence to me. Surely you can find it if it is out there Sweden is a social democrat country with no great love for the US ,it isn't even a NATO member, couple with which the USA hasn't actually asked for him. Unattributed assertions are worthless. You probably read it on some Assangista website

Reading comprehension fail much? I was agreeing with you on that point. It's your argument, you can find your own damn attributions. Also, why the heck would a pro-Assange website be stating anything like that?

As for Sweden violating their own laws as well as international law regarding extradition, are you stating that the keruffle surrounding Agiza v. Sweden never happened? Cause I can assure you, you are wrong.

Also, you need to figure out how to use the quote system.

[Waratah]

2) If a person is extradited to a country if a third party wishes to extradite him to their country then they must have the permission of both the original country and the one that now holds that person. So it would be twice the trouble to extradite him to the USA, so why is it easier to extradite him from sweden to the USA than from the UK?

I cannot find information as to such, nor a legal mechanism to enforce it. Can you provide some source material?

....Snipped I've also read this in the news (don't remember where, it was linked off of Google News), but Sweden has already shown blatant disregard for their own law as well as international law regarding extradition.

That sounds like great evidence to me. Surely you can find it if it is out there Sweden is a social democrat country with no great love for the US ,it isn't even a NATO member, couple with which the USA hasn't actually asked for him. Unattributed assertions are worthless. You probably read it on some Assangista website

Sweden cannot prevent a US-backed extradition as it is within the US-Sweden treaties unless a set of conditions (threat of torture, death) is m

yes- it needs permission from the UK to do so.Snipped....

(My red bold)
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Moros Synackaon asked for some proof of your assertion.

[Violet]

New people arguing without an understanding of the quote system is kinda like watching squirrels armed with porcupine quill spiked knuckles stab/pound the living shit out of a kangaroo.

Not to harp on yall too hard about it, it's just really amusing

[Puddleglum]

Ah OK Waratah you wish to see my proof of the need for the UK to approve any further extradition. Well instead of claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it ill happily demonstrate it.

It is contained in article 17 of the Framework of the European arrest warrant

A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused

You can read more in full Here

[Waratah]

Ah OK Waratah you wish to see my proof of the need for the UK to approve any further extradition. Well instead of claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it ill happily demonstrate it.

It is contained in article 17 of the Framework of the European arrest warrant

A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused

You can read more in full Here

I understand you have not directly said that I was " claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it", but your use of my name in the same paragraph could infer I had done that, especially since no other name was associated. Could you please in future make it clear who said what so as not to accidently mislead people.

I could not find in your link, Article 17, but I did finally find the "Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision."
LINKY

Article 17
Time limits and procedures for the decision to execute the European arrest warrant
1. A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.
2. In cases where the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given.
3. In other cases, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person.
4. Where in specific cases the European arrest warrant cannot be executed within the time limits laid down in paragraphs 2 or 3, the executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority thereof, giving the reasons for the delay. In such case, the time limits may be extended by a further 30 days.
5. As long as the executing judicial authority has not taken a final decision on the European arrest warrant, it shall ensure that the material conditions necessary for effective surrender of the person remain fulfilled.
6. Reasons must be given for any refusal to execute a European arrest warrant.
7. Where in exceptional circumstances a Member State cannot observe the time limits provided for in this Article, it shall inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay. In addition, a Member State which has experienced repeated delays on the part of another Member State in the execution of European arrest warrants shall inform the Council with a view to evaluating the implementation of this Framework Decision at Member State level.

The Article 17 I found is different to yours. Myn could be out of date or you may have written the incorrect article number

Could you please provide a link to where you got the "Article 17 statement".

In your European Arrest Warrant link I found this:

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.

My Bold.
If the above is true why has the UK granted extradition?
I think we all have to remember that wikileaks has pissed off a lot of governments.
I found a link within your link titled Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence. [36] 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[37], including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions[38]

If the above is true why hasn't the Swedish authorities done this(question abroad) and why are they so keen to get Assange to Sweden?
IMO Assange has every right to be paranoid that governments are out to get him.

[Puddleglum]

MY link was to wikipedia and you read it.

I think we have now established that the UK must agree to a third party extradition

If the above is true why hasn't the Swedish authorities done this(question abroad) and why are they so keen to get Assange to Sweden?

No idea. They have an option to do this if they wish. They are choosing not to exercise it as is their legal right.
perhaps they believe they will look stupid if the go to the UK , question him, decide there is a case to answer and he still refuses to come over.


Anyway, quite separately, even if they could extradite him I don't believe they would since it would diminish the status of Sweden amongst other social democratic countries. I don't think the USA would try and undermine Sweden either by attempting to do so but that is just an opinion and not provable.

Assange can just stay inside the prison of his own making

[Waratah]

Ah OK Waratah you wish to see my proof of the need for the UK to approve any further extradition. Well instead of claiming that it was in 'some thing I read and failing to establish it ill happily demonstrate it.

It is contained in article 17 of the Framework of the European arrest warrant

A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused

You can read more in full Here

It was not me wanting to see proof it was originally Moros Synackaon. I was pointing out that your statement of "unattributed assertions are worthless" was strange since you had done that after being asked pacifically for a source to information provided by you.

MY link was to wikipedia and you read it.

I know it was wikipedia, but you said we could read MORE IN FULL. This to me says it would at least have your "Article 17 statement" which I could not find.

I think we have now established that the UK must agree to a third party extradition

No we have not. Your "Article 17 statement"(Remember different to mine. And I have the link to mine.) which was used to back your claim has not been confirmed. I think what you have established is an unattributed assertion.
I will ask again for you to provide relevant links to back your argument. If not your statement is bullshit.

If the above is true why hasn't the Swedish authorities done this(question abroad) and why are they so keen to get Assange to Sweden?

No idea. They have an option to do this if they wish. They are choosing not to exercise it as is their legal right.
perhaps they believe they will look stupid if the go to the UK , question him, decide there is a case to answer and he still refuses to come over.

I think they look stupid for not trying to establish the facts before extradition.

Anyway, quite separately, even if they could extradite him I don't believe they would since it would diminish the status of Sweden amongst other social democratic countries. I don't think the USA would try and undermine Sweden either by attempting to do so but that is just an opinion and not provable.

I have no ideas about Sweden's politics or the relationship between USA and Sweden. I believe the Australia and USA have a close relationship and look what they did to David Hicks. Anything is possible.

Assange can just stay inside the prison of his own making

Sounds like you have a dislike to Assange.

[downbeatplumb]

What I'd really like to know is how in the hell a rapist manages to find the time and handpower to put on a condom. You'd think the victims would use the opportunity to escape. I'm not trying to denigrate any victims here; I just want to know that would work.

I know what you mean, those things are tricky.

[kılıç_mehmet]

He'd be arrested for leaking classified documents. A little counter-productive.

In Sweden? Why would Sweden arrest him for leaking classified documents? I don't think he has leaked any Swedish documents has he?

He wouldn't be arrested(for trial in Sweden), probably, but handed over to American authorities.

[Puddleglum]

Again, USA has not requested his extradition from the UK so why should they request it from Sweden
And as I have shown above the permission of the UK would be required as well. So why have to go through both the UK and the Swedish procedure when they could just have gone through the UK alone.

I'm still waiting for this evidence of Swedish judicial malfeasance.