h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is quite a good article from yesterday:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

FB

I am seriously considering buying shares in that newley re-opened tin mine in Cornwall BTW.... I hear demand is sky rocketing.

FB

And I thought this was interesting on the "Why doesn't Sweden interview him here" question.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london

FB

FB, you should read from post 93, Z has already posted that same link.


Why not to look at the plain simple facts and get your own opinion from that?

The allegations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Probably people who say things like:
"never mind those women, the life of Assange is in risk"

or

"never mind Assange , he´s a rapist and can´t get away with it"

or

" those women were sent by the CIA, it was a trap to catch Assange"

would have the arguments to stop saying stupid things and stick to the facts. Allegations that any prosecutor would feel ashamed of giving any credit, that´s way the first swedish prosecutor said it didn´t hold any water. They didn´t charge him then because there´s not case.

there are more facts like what US media and politicians said about WL, what those journalists of the University of Columbia said about WL....

And there´s the person who is leading the defence of Assange, the judge Baltasar Garzón. International justice owns this brave man many things.He is brave because he is been under threats of death from ETA, narco trafficants, Russian mafia... and a long etc. I know that I´m been subjective here, but I think that Garzón wouldn´t have accepted the defence of that man ( which he does pro bono) if he had found something incoherent in the affair.

I know that for people who have a sense of superiority, for instance those who thinks that what Nial Ferguson says about the British Empire is right, or those who ignore that Britain let Pinochet get away from the extradition appeal sent by the judge Garzón... it is easy to ignore the plain truth and dismiss it as those silly tin-foil hatters´s conspiracies. Instead, why not accept that Britain goverment is playing a ridiculous role in all this?

Cameron et al. should bear the slap of of Ecuador ( it´s a slap because US and Britain were supposed to be the only guardians of Human rights) and move on, giving Assange a safe passage.

How much is costing this "my polla-dyc is bigger than yours" contest to British tax payers?

Is Wikileaks dead?

Have all their servers been confiscated / disconnected?

Are all the wiki-leakers on the run being chased by the corporate militia (etc)?

Wish there was a wikileak on this issue ...

As far as I can tell all the wikileaks information was available before the wikileaks, except not to the public. There hasn't been any use of the information from journalists as far as I can tell. I remember the Daily Telegraph receiving information regarding politicians expenses and it was their releases that revealed just one small aspect of the corruption amongst British politicians.

>> "my polla-dyc is bigger than yours" <<

How delightful to see Maria's delving into the
subtleties of English as a Second Language!


~jwf~

In cost terms it isn't as expensive as i'd expected it to be - generally fewer police round, though when he made his little speech I'm sure we had to lose quite a few police from actually policing to deal with that

I don't think we can let him just go to Ecuador, not so much loss of prestige, but there is a case that he must answer in Sweden - we cannot just let him avoid that - in future everyone would be jumping to an Embassy and trying to convince them that they could offer enough to them/against the UK, even if they weren't famous

Also its not just a moral issue - Assange is being under an EAW - even if we were willing to let him go, even if we wanted to we wouldn't legally be able to

"Why not to look at the plain simple facts and get your own opinion from that?"

Y'now I posted a couple of links but in truth have followed the story for ages and I have read a huge amount about the subject. My views on it, whether or not you agree with them, are not formed from just having read a couple of posts.

"They didn´t charge him then because there´s not case."

Srsl, is anyone actually maintaining that now? Perhaps I have misread what you meant here (if so I apologise) but Assange isn't making that case any more he is entirely focussed on the extradition to US angle. I don't know if he raped those women (that is something for courts to decide) but the stuff his legal team have **admitted to** looks to me as a layman that he certainly has a cae to answer.

"And there´s the person who is leading the defence of Assange, the judge Baltasar Garzón. International justice owns this brave man many things."

Logical fallacy, an appeal to dubious authority. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Garzon's career (as it happens I am a big fan) his record has no bearing on the facts of a case.

"Instead, why not accept that Britain goverment is playing a ridiculous role in all this? "

I'll give you that the letter to Ecuador was astonishingly inept. I fail to see how the Foreign Office could have been so stupid.

But in respect of the rest of it, the Government have received a request for extradition within the legal framework the country is signed up to. This request has been able to be openly challenged in court multiple times, the process has come to the end and the decision at the end is tyhat Extradition is the outcome. And therefore they intend to extradite him.

I fail to see how this is ridiculous it is almost a dictionary definition of due process.

FB

<<I don't know if he raped those women (that is something for courts to decide) but the stuff his legal team have **admitted to** looks to me as a layman that he certainly has a cae to answer.

I don´t know what you have read, but I´ve read that Guardian article I´ve posted above, and in another post I´ve copied and pasted part of it. It was a no case both for Swedish justice and of course Assange´s defense.
I doubt the defense have changed the discurse now.

Have you read the refutations in the comments of that link you and Z posted? Pretty interesting.


<<
Logical fallacy, an appeal to dubious authority. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Garzon's career (as it happens I am a big fan) his record has no bearing on the facts of a case.<<

You are cherrypicking my words, I said that I was being subjective and I also added why I think Garzón´s career deserves to be considered in this case.


<<I'll give you that the letter to Ecuador was astonishingly inept. I fail to see how the Foreign Office could have been so stupid.

IMO, because of that sense of "we are superior to them, we are Great Britain and we are used to treat that kind of people as we want"


<<the process has come to the end and the decision at the end is tyhat Extradition is the outcome. And therefore they intend to extradite him.

No, the process has not come to an end. Garzón is waiting an answer from the British government. The International Law says that in this circunstances Assange must be given a safe passage.

Garzón has said that there aren´t any garanties of a fair trial in Sweden. He can face indefinite detention in jail, to say the least.

He also has said that there´s a Grand Jury in Virginia ruling an investigation on Wikileaks. In any moment US can ask Sweden an extratidion of Assange.


Britain goverment is not tied up, it can do what they want, even choose which aspect of the law to follow or not follow any at all, as they did with Pinochet, a criminal monster. But hey, Maggie and her friends owned him a favour...

That kind of favours and actions is what WL has denounced, and that´s the reason of all this. We are missing here what those journalists of Columbia said about the freedom of press.

I don't think we can let him just go ...

History is a strange fish we never know where it can lead. Possibly another Falklands conflict down the road with a few thousand dead soldiers, but maybe that's inevitable.

I see Gorgeous George Galloway insists that Assange is only guilty of "bad sexual etiquette". Assange certainly seems to be gathering the fruit loops to his corner.

"I don´t know what you have read, but I´ve read that Guardian article I´ve posted above, and in another post I´ve copied and pasted part of it. It was a no case both for Swedish justice and of course Assange´s defense.
I doubt the defense have changed the discurse now."

Is that the Grauniad article dated ***2010*** ???

Now don't get me wrong I love and read the Gaurdian being a sandal wearing, museli munching, bledding heart liberal lefty. But c'mon lets not pretend it is the oracle and it never gets stuff wrong. All newspapers editorialise, campaign and frankly lie from time to time.

Our choice of paper is, if we are honest with ourselves an exercise in "Lies we like" or at least an exercise in "confirmation bias".

On to the red meat the whole idea that there is no case to answer is hyperbole, bullshit and outright lies and deception.

Have a read on this for an argument as to why the allegations would in fact be considered rape here, in Sweden and no doubt in Spain too Maria:-

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

This one (H/T to @Mr603 of this parish) is also pretty good.

http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html


These things (if he is in fact found guilty of them) mean he is a rapist. And he should go to jail in Sweden for a long time. Of course if he isn't guilty then he will be found innocent. Sweden is a modern liberal democracy not an authoritarian tin pot banana republic.

When accused of a crime you should face due process for it. Is kinda the bedrock of civilised society. Being an anti American cause celibre should not exempt you from this.

--------------------------------------------------------------

" Garzón´s career deserves to be considered in this case. "

I'm sorry but this is rubbish for me. The personal reputation of advocates on either side is utterly, utterly irrelevant. What is important is the facts of the case and the situation. I might on the basis of an advocates reputation be more or less prepared to read stuff the recommend to me but their advocacy one way or another has nothing to do with the case.

"Have you read the refutations in the comments of that link you and Z posted? Pretty interesting."

I'll be prepared to admit that the job of trawling through the misogynistic, ill informed, crazy tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist, sewer or abuse and toxic views that appear "beneath the line" in the comments section of stuff is too much for my fragile little mind to consider.

If people have a good enough argument they can write a blog or article themselves and ill read that. Feel free to provide the links.

"The International Law says that in this circunstances Assange must be given a safe passage."

Simply not true. There is nothing in international law that even suggests this. In South America there is a **custom** but this isnt the same thing as international law. And Britain isn't in South AMerica.

"He also has said that there´s a Grand Jury in Virginia ruling an investigation on Wikileaks. In any moment US can ask Sweden an extratidion of Assange."

If true then they can ask us to extradite him. And asking isn't the same as receiving. Where is the evidence that extradition would be easier from Sweden (hint it isn't it is more difficult because of legal framework if we extradite him there).

"Britain goverment is not tied up, it can do what they want, even choose which aspect of the law to follow or not follow any at all, as they did with Pinochet, a criminal monster. But hey, Maggie and her friends owned him a favour... "

Straw man. UK prior failing over Pinochet is not actually related to what the right thing to do *NOW* is.

FB

There's nothing in international law that obligates countries to grant safe passage for people given asylum
Occasionally it will be granted as a diplomatic gesture, or by small countries to more powerful ones to curry favour, but there's no requirement

Dammit, missed the reply above

aside/
There´s a problem with the filter, let´s see if I find the word that you "may find offensive"
Aside/

Sorry, I can´t find the word, so I´ll divide the post. Perdón.

Part 1

I´m not a wordshipper of the Guardian besides, currently, there´s only an article favourable to Assange, that one of Mark Weisbrot.
I read anything, not because I´m trying to be balanced or something like that, it´s because I have to read and write in English as part of my studies and, to be honest, all this is quite interesting. So thank you all.

The article, yes from 2010, when the things were fresh, It´s not the opinion of a blogger who takes out of context some words, like that jack of kent, the same one who writes in the other article the "refutation" of legal myths ( the one Z and you posted) I´ve read that Jack of Kent , have you read the comments I´ve mentioned? It seems you won´t since you say:

<<I'll be prepared to admit that the job of trawling through the misogynistic, ill informed, crazy tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist, sewer or abuse and toxic views that appear "beneath the line" in the comments section of stuff is too much for my fragile little mind to consider.<<<

Shame your prejudices are so fixed, you should get rid of so much "I´m fe king right"

Anyway, your witty jack of kent says it´s "sleep r a p e". Let´s see how it was . This is from that link from the Guardian:

"The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have s e x, Assange had not wanted to wear a c o n dom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected s e x. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had s e x at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a c o n dom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having s ex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a con dom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the con dom all night. She had never had unprotected s e x before."

The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in s ex ual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had con sensual s e x. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have s e x with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been r ap ed and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

::

Please, go on reading that article from 2010. Read also those comments that you have already labelled without reading them.

------------------
<<<Sweden is a modern liberal democracy not an authoritarian tin pot banana republic.

That´s funny. Do you know which countries have fostered, promoted, helped those banana republics???

In the answer you´ll find how relative, depending on who use them, the words Democracy, coup d´etat, terrorism.... and civilized western countries.

----------

It seems you know more on International Law than Garzón. We´ll see.

I granted what you say about the grand jury of Virginia, I have no idea why US haven´t asked for extradition before, as I don´t know why Sweden haven´t gone to Britain to question Assange... weird.

What I say about Pinochet is not a straw man argument, it´s not any argument, I´m just telling you all how hypocritical sounds the words of your F O minister, Mr Hague, when he says that Britain can´t do anything else than sending Assange to Sweden.

"Shame your prejudices are so fixed, you should get rid of so much "I´m fe king right" "

Hmmmm was a jokey exaggeration. But I do find "below the line" genuinely intolerable. I really don't want to read them as it makes me depressed. I'll happily read and carefully written article or blog putting these points across but comments sections really are a sewer I find.

"The article, yes from 2010, when the things were fresh, It´s not the opinion of a blogger who takes out of context some words, like that jack of kent, the same one who writes in the other article the "refutation" of legal myths ( the one Z and you posted) I´ve read that Jack of Kent, "

You mean in 2010 before the facts had come out and been extensively tested time after time in open court. With full documentary evidence of what was done and said by Assange's legal team?

Because frankly i'd take a forensic look at the FACTS of the legal cases including Assange's own evidence over a speculative peice before people knew that much every single day of the week.

FB

"Please, go on reading that article from 2010. Read also those comments that you have already labelled without reading them."

Ok but sorry to labour the point but since 2010 most of this stuff has been tested in open court (rather than the speculative stuff from the 2010 article) and if you read was was said, and conceeded by Assanges team in court it paints a very different picture. Very different.

FB