Bring Home Assange

[sinner]

Will Kevin Rudd stand up to the US/UK and bring Julian Assange from Wikileaks back home?

I actually voted for Rudd in '07, would like to see something useful come from that.

This http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ses-him-a-laptop/story-fn59niix-1225969826148

FOREIGN Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday mounted a strong defence of Julian Assange's legal rights.

The WikiLeaks founder is preparing to face court in London early Wednesday morning (AEDT).

Mr Rudd said he was prepared to intervene to have a laptop computer provided for Mr Assange in London's Wandsworth prison to help the Australian prepare his defence and obtain bail at his appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court.

Following suggestions by Julia Gillard and Attorney-General Robert McClelland that Mr Assange may have his Australian passport cancelled, Mr Rudd said any such decision was his as Foreign Minister. "Under law, I'm responsible for the Passports Act, therefore the decisions concerning the withdrawal or otherwise of passports rests exclusively with the foreign minister based on the advice of the relevant agencies," Mr Rudd told The Australian in Cairo.

Compared to Gillards reaction...

 

[CanOz]

Bah ha hahahahaha! I would love to see this, but in reality i don't think he's got the gonads.

The only ones to stand up to them so far are Ecuador, Hong Kong, and Russia

You really got to wonder about the land of the free, if you can't leak a few naughties once in a while.

CanOz

 

[orr]

As my old dad say's... "there's a lot of support for Assange amongst the 'cluey one's', trouble is, there's not a lot of 'em".

Gillard and McCelland's actions with regard Assange were squirmingly obsequious, the opposition was worse. There's easy votes in this. question is, just how many?

 

[sinner]

orr, the amount of discussion this thread has generated seems to indicate your dad was quite correct!

 

[CanOz]

Thanks Sinner, I'll take that as a compliment...however in reality i think the ALP is stealing the attention ... again

 

[Zedd]

I think a bit of rhetoric prior to the election would be in Rudd's favour, a bit of anti-American sentiment always goes down well, but realistic he's got no chance of getting past extradition agreements with the US, UK and Sweden.

The only time a change in leadership is going to matter to Assange is when a US president gets in who is happy to pardon him.

 

[sinner]

I think a bit of rhetoric prior to the election would be in Rudd's favour, a bit of anti-American sentiment always goes down well, but realistic he's got no chance of getting past extradition agreements with the US, UK and Sweden.

The only time a change in leadership is going to matter to Assange is when a US president gets in who is happy to pardon him.

The UK Gov managed to bring home suspected terrorists from Guantanamo, one of the worst places on the planet, and we can't get Assange out of the Ecuador embassy.

 

[McLovin]

Will Kevin Rudd stand up to the US/UK and bring Julian Assange from Wikileaks back home?

How exactly does he go about that? If he rung up Cameron and asked for Assange to be sent home I'm sure he'd be told in no uncertain terms that the enforcement of British law is not Australia's business.

 

[sinner]

How exactly does he go about that? If he rung up Cameron and asked for Assange to be sent home I'm sure he'd be told in no uncertain terms that the enforcement of British law is not Australia's business.

He can do exactly what the UK did to the US when it came to UK prisoners in Guantanamo.

He can do exactly what the US did to Pakistan when it came to the CIA agent who had his cover blown.

How much effort did Rudd go to with Stern Hu? I would like to see at least 1/10th of that effort for Assange.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

He can do exactly what the UK did to the US when it came to UK prisoners in Guantanamo.

He can do exactly what the US did to Pakistan when it came to the CIA agent who had his cover blown.

How much effort did Rudd go to with Stern Hu? I would like to see at least 1/10th of that effort for Assange.

No one in power is going to make any effort to free him. They all know he is a potential threat to power brokers everywhere. Power brokers hate those who uncover secrets. Assange has brought this on himself unfortunately.

 

[sinner]

No one in power is going to make any effort to free him. They all know he is a potential threat to power brokers everywhere. Power brokers hate those who uncover secrets. Assange has brought this on himself unfortunately.

Except for the fact that Julian Assange simply brought together a bunch of geeks, who made a public website. They have not uncovered a single secret themselves. Yes, he has surely brought the consequences of fighting on the side of truth on himself. That is the whole point. What you seemingly fail to appreciate is the consequences are all screwed up, if punishment by a Developed World Democracy is the consequence fighting on the side of truth.

I guess I wasn't expecting much more than this from ASF, just got caught up in the Rudd moment, so nevermind, return to your regular programming

 

[McLovin]

He can do exactly what the UK did to the US when it came to UK prisoners in Guantanamo.

There's been no miscarriage of justice, yet. The highest court in the UK has ruled that his extradition is legal. This is a ruling based on a point of law not a moralistic determination. He is refusing to leave the embassy. It's nothing like being held without charge for x years. Which goes against every tenet of modern democracy.

As for Pakistan and China, there completely different kettles of fish. You can't compare the legal system of two despotic regimes to that of the UK.

What you seemingly fail to appreciate is the consequences are all screwed up, if punishment by a Developed World Democracy is the consequence fighting on the side of truth.

He hasn't been punished yet. That's the smoke and mirrors on his part. That Sweden will allow his extradition to the US, I'm skeptical of, because Sweden isn't exactly a US lacky like Australia and the UK. So if the Americans really wanted him they could have got him far more easily from the UK.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

As for Pakistan and China, there completely different kettles of fish. You can't compare the legal system of two despotic regimes to that of the UK.

If he was in China he'd have been thrown down a very deep hole and never heard of again. Same as they do with anyone who threatens to upset the regime.

 

[sinner]

There's been no miscarriage of justice, yet. The highest court in the UK has ruled that his extradition is legal. He is refusing to leave the embassy. It's nothing like being held without charge for x years. Which goes against every tenet of modern democracy.

As for Pakistan and China, there completely different kettles of fish. You can't compare the legal system of two despotic regimes to that of the UK.

The UK court has ruled Assange extradition to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant as legal. Not his extradition to the US.

AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, the US has placed no charges against Assange.

He hasn't been punished yet. That's the smoke and mirrors on his part. That Sweden will allow his extradition to the US, I'm skeptical of, because Sweden isn't exactly a US lacky like Australia and the UK. So if the Americans really wanted him they could have got him far more easily from the UK.

Just on this note, Assange has repeatedly stated he would be OK with returning to Sweden to deal with anything surrounding the European Arrest Warrant, but he refuses to attend Sweden on this basis only to be extradited to the US. To this end, all the Swedish Govt would need to do is issue a promise that they won't extradite him if he returns to face the Arrest Warrant. IMHO, fair call.

 

[McLovin]

The UK court has ruled Assange extradition to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant as legal. Not his extradition to the US.

AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, the US has placed no charges against Assange.

And that's my point. But further, if you look at the way the UK handled the Gary McKinnon case it seems to me that if the US really wanted Assange, the place to do it would be through extradition from the UK. The Extradition Act 2003 (which was another post 9/11 legal "enhancement") lowered the bar for extradition between the US and the UK. This has been my contention all along.

Just on this note, Assange has repeatedly stated he would be OK with returning to Sweden to deal with anything surrounding the European Arrest Warrant, but he refuses to attend Sweden on this basis only to be extradited to the US. To this end, all the Swedish Govt would need to do is issue a promise that they won't extradite him if he returns to face the Arrest Warrant. IMHO, fair call.

It's not possible to give a promise before the request for extradition has been received.

Assange has indicated that he may go to Sweden if he receives an undertaking that he won't thereafter be extradited. The difficulty is that Sweden has not received an extradition request and nor could it have since Assange is in Ecuador's Embassy in the UK. On a practical level Sweden could not give an undertaking on a request not yet received. Legally there are problems too. In Sweden section 15 of their Extradition For Criminal Offences Act states that “ Before the government makes a decision , the Prosecutor General shall deliver a statement of opinion on the matter. In addition , if the person referred to in the request has not consented to being extradited, the case shall be tried by the Supreme Court. The request shall , however, be rejected immediately if there is a manifest reason why it should not be granted. “ Therefore it appears that if the extradition is contested as it would be in Assange's case then it is a matter for the court not the government to decide if he is extradited.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what's_going_on?.html

 

[sinner]

And that's my point. But further, if you look at the way the UK handled the Gary McKinnon case it seems to me that if the US really wanted Assange, the place to do it would be through extradition from the UK. The Extradition Act 2003 (which was another post 9/11 legal "enhancement") lowered the bar for extradition between the US and the UK. This has been my contention all along.

Lucky he is not on UK soil then, isn't it?

It's not possible to give a promise before the request for extradition has been received.

What a strange "excuse" to come up with? I really don't understand what you're saying here, or more specifically, why the Swedish Govt can't issue a statement saying

"Should Julian Assange return to Sweden to face charges relating to the European Arrest Warrant, we promise that any extraditions requests from the UK/US/AU Governments in relation to espionage/aiding the enemy/state secrets will be ignored."

If you can please clarify why it's impossible for the Swedish Govt (or Supreme Court) to issue a statement without an extradition request?

 

[Calliope]

Bring him home???? He's already got a home, holed up like a rat in the Ecuadorian embassy. It would be interesting to know how the Ecuadorians cater for his sexual addictions.

 

[McLovin]

Lucky he is not on UK soil then, isn't it?

Yes he is. The Ecuadorian embassy is not "Ecuadorian territory", despite what most people think. The UK will not enter because of the various treaties that give diplomatic immunity to foreign missions, and because the UK itself has foreign missions in some otherwise pretty nasty parts of the world and doesn't want to set a precedent. If they really wanted to, they could just revoke the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian ambassador which removes any immunity over police entering the building. Either way, the UK and its laws are still sovereign over the embassy.

If you can please clarify why it's impossible for the Swedish Govt (or Supreme Court) to issue a statement without an extradition request?

It would completely undermine the judicial process for courts to be issuing exemptions and promises. Would you expect a court to agree to not prosecute someone convicted of murder because it made a promise not to?

The Swedish government can't because it doesn't know to what it is agreeing; not only has no extradition request been received anywhere, there haven't even been any charges laid. Vague descriptions of "we promise not to do anything for x, x or x" don't cut it. Any promise would have to be given on the basis of the request for extradition and the charges and evidence contained in it.

In any event Swedish law stipulates that a court has final say over whether he is extradited, not the government.

And here from a Swedish judge...

“Extradition is permitted provided the offence for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment of at least one year,” Lindskog says. “Thus, extradition requires firstly an offence punishable under the law of both countries – dual criminality – and secondly that the offence is of a certain degree of seriousness.”

Lindskog also says “extradition may not be granted for military or political offences” and explains that Swedish law won’t permit extradition if the subject of such a request is likely to experience persecution or “is serious in any other respects” or "is contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles”.

“We have some specifics when it comes to extradition to the United States,” Lindskog added, including prohibitions on extradition for political or military acts.

Lindskog then says he doesn’t know what crimes Assange could be charged with in the USA for leaking US secrets and hypothesises unlawful communication of secret material will be the basis of any charge. Sweden does have such an offence on its books, but “it can be debated” leaking American documents is not a crime under Swedish Law. Even “aiding the enemy” provisions of US and Swedish laws may be hard, as the USA’s enemies are not necessarily Sweden’s enemies. Nor is Lindskog satisfied that publishing secret documents to the world constitutes aiding the enemy, possibly making it hard to establish dual criminality.

 

[sinner]

Yes he is. The Ecuadorian embassy is not "Ecuadorian territory", despite what most people think. The UK will not enter because of the various treaties that give diplomatic immunity to foreign missions, and because the UK itself has foreign missions in some otherwise pretty nasty parts of the world and doesn't want to set a precedent. If they really wanted to, they could just revoke the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian ambassador which removes any immunity over police entering the building. Either way, the UK and its laws are still sovereign over the embassy.

OK that's mostly just a technicality on what I meant. Obviously it's "Ecuadorian soil" only at the convenience of the UK Government.

It would completely undermine the judicial process for courts to be issuing exemptions and promises. Would you expect a court to agree to not prosecute someone convicted of murder because it made a promise not to?

The Swedish government can't because it doesn't know to what it is agreeing; not only has no extradition request been received anywhere, there haven't even been any charges laid. Vague descriptions of "we promise not to do anything for x, x or x" don't cut it. Any promise would have to be given on the basis of the request for extradition and the charges and evidence contained in it. That's the way it works in every other country.

In any event Swedish law stipulates that a court has final say over whether he is extradited, not the government.

The thing is, Assange has stated that such a vague description probably would cut it for him, and he would act on good faith.

Anyway, we are getting off topic.

At the very least, taking into consideration all of your concerns and issues raised, I would still like to see something from Rudd on this. Send consular officials to the Ecuador embassy. Make a statement rebuking any idiocy stated by Julia Gillard around Assange being a criminal under Australian law and having his passport revoked. Register a complaint with the US against their pursuit of him, which they have not done so far despite the US presenting them many opportunites to do so. Anything.

 

[McLovin]

Make a statement rebuking any idiocy stated by Julia Gillard around Assange being a criminal under Australian law and having his passport revoked.Register a complaint with the US against their pursuit of him, which they have not done so far despite the US presenting them many opportunites to do so. Anything.

On that I agree completely with you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It beats the hell out of this end of year tax cr@p.