BristolUK

Julian Assange confirms he is willing to travel to US after Manning decision

Almost Canadian

So why does he not leave the embassy, accept immediate arrest and extradition to Sweden, and face whatever action is taken against him there?

Former Lancastrian

Are you offering to represent him
Ah those allegations of sexual assault and rape which if found guilty would likely lead to a prison sentence.

Almost Canadian

I'm not a criminal lawyer.

I thought the reason he sought asylum was that Sweden would extradite him to the US. The fact that the US has never sought his extradition didn't appear to matter to him, or to those that supported his attempts to evade the authorities.

BritInParis

The irony is if Assange had faced music then he would have been free by now if he had been convicted by a a Swedish or a US court. Instead he remains a prisoner of his own volition.

caretaker

That isn't true. The danger for him the whole time has been that he might be snatched by the US and hauled off into the ether. Alleged crimes in Sweden have never been the real issue behind his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and Swedish police will interview him there next week regarding those charges.

Almost Canadian

Have you ever read the transcripts from the hearings in England where the theory you have stated above was well and truly debunked? It is evident that you haven't.

If you spend 10 minutes or so reading them, you will note that the US has never sought his extradition, that Sweden indicated that they would not deliver him to the US even if the US made such a request, and that any such request would have to be dealt with by the UK courts.

It appears that you have fallen for Assange's nonsense. Are you able to explain why the US was not able to "haul him off" while he was in England?

To me, he appears to be nothing more than an alleged sex offender that is seeking to avoid justice.

In any event, it will be interesting to see the action he will take now. I anticipate that he will avoid travelling to the US as he said he would, on the basis that he is not satisfied that his rights will be satisfactorily respected.

BristolUK

This is probably one of those "they would say that, wouldn't they" moments.
"Dear America...is it true you were planning to secretly get hold of someone who was causing you embarrassment and cart them off to some undisclosed place?"

"Oh, good heavens, no. We wouldn't dream of doing something like that."

Almost Canadian

Well, it is a fact that the US has never sought his extradition and, if they had attempted to while he was in the UK or Sweden, there would be a legal process to follow. Just like there was a legal process to follow when Sweden sought his extradition from the UK. You know, the legal process that was being followed when he sought "refuge" in the embassy in which he now finds himself.

People can defend him all they wish to but, when doing so, I respectfully suggest that they at least rely upon facts. Failing which, to me, they sound little more than apologists for someone that appears to be hell bent upon avoiding facing charges of sexual assault.

bats

Quite so.

BristolUK

And if the USA had never, not once, done something without following due process and all the rest of it, then that might mean something.

Remember how that case against Ghomeshi fell apart because certain subsequent behaviours were not consistent with what would normally be associated with assault victims?

All that stuff (and more) was involved in this case too and, remember, they didn't even complain about assault, they just wanted him to take an STD test.

But I remember this coming up before. I don't think anything new has occurred.

Almost Canadian

I accept that the legal process works and, as such, I see no reason why Assange doesn't simply face his accusers in Sweden.

If you are able to produce any credible evidence that the US, when requesting extradition against a person in the UK, did not take the appropriate legal route before "hauling them off" I would accept your proposition. However, the evidence suggests that, when the US seeks extradition against those living in the UK for things such as Assange alleges they want him for, they have followed due process.

Here is one that supports my position: Extradition to the US

Over to you

BristolUK

We may as well read the last thread on it as I don't think anything knew has come to light since then.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/maple...ention-871863/


Well that wasn't really what I said was it. You suggested that because the USA had not sought extradition there was no likelihood of them being in cahoots with Sweden and having him taken to America.

Now I can't lay my hands on any documents from the security services as evidence but it's a widely held belief that the US has been in cahoots with at least one nation previously over very similar matters although Guantanamo might not be the intended destination on this occasion.

BritInParis

If he had faced the music in Sweden only to be instantly extradited to the United States (any reason why the US couldn't do that whilst he was in the UK?) and imprisoned then he would have had his sentence commuted alongside Manning this week. At this rate he'll be holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy forever.

Davita

Interesting debate...

Doesn't anyone remember the precedence of Maher Arar?

He also wasn't requested for extradition by the USA, nor the Syrians, but still we Canadian tax-payers had to fork out C$10.5M compensation and offer a humiliating apology from our elected leader.....because nobody was paying attention to what 'can and does' go on behind the scene.'

Talk about due process and diligence..... my ASS.