What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

And that argument just boils down to he shouldn't have to go if he doesn't want to, which is a ridiculous way to run a criminal justice system.

Well his job is running his website. His life is the things he does, and I don’t know what his address was.

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.



It would be entirely correct for the onus to be on the Swedish prosecutors to prove there was a case to be answered prior to forcing him to do anything

There is a case to be answered, 2 women have accused him of rape and other sexual crimes. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, that will be decided at any potential trial, but unless you think rape allegations shouldn't be investigated then there is most certainly a case to be answered. At the moment Assange refuses to answer it, and has broken the law to try and avoid answering that case.



Just because he doesn't want to go doesnt mean he shouldn't be extradited. And the political asylum is a ludicrous decision that interferes in the criminal justice system of this country.

The intimation is that this is a purely political prosecution. My point is that if so, just about every layer of the Swedish justice system is apparently complicit.





How droll. Did you have a point you wanted to make?





Did you read the justification for the decision? They have NOT decided that he is being persecuted. They have decided that he [imight[/i be persecuted IF Sweden chose to expedite him to the USA. The basis of the asylum offer is that Sweden could not give them a categorical guarantee that they would not expedite him to the USA. A guarantee that it is impossible for ANY democratic government to provide.



Oh - and there are a number of experts on international law who question whether it was, in fact, a valid request.





The problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.

A country he once lived in and in fact applied to have permanent residence in, on the grounds that he felt safe from persecution there. I wonder what's changed...

No we have a long standing tradition and a right one in my opinion of the presumption of innocence. It is in fact the accusation which is irrelevant, and limiting of an individuals freedom, is (or at least the that’s the image which we like to project) based on the evidence presented. Right now, no evidence has been presented. There is nothing to actually prove that this accusation has any merit. The absence of a prima facie judgement means that the Swedish prosecutors haven’t proved that there is a case to answer. The presumption of innocence demands that until such a time as a case to answer has been proved, it is wrong for us to infringe or limit a persons freedom or liberty.



Political asylum doesn’t interfere with the judicial system, it is part of the judicial system. It is part of the checks and balances which protects people from a governments nefarious actions.



Turn it round, would you argue that someone granted political asylum in by the British Government, in a British embassy, should be extradited to Ecuador to face charges they, and the British Government suspect to be politically motivated where the prosecutors refused to interview them in the embassy, but demanded extradition without providing evidence there was a case to answer?

I once live in Australia, I wouldn’t travel back there to answer questions. I have a life to be getting on with.

You seem to find this very unlikely, yet seem perfectly happy to believe a narrative that states the president of an independent democratically elected country has sparked a diplomatic crisis in a situation they had no prior involvement in, just to play silly buggers. And every level of the Ecuadorian foreign office is complicit.

Just wanted to highlight the double standards you were applying to the trustworthy ol’ Swedes (who were complicit in the secret rendition and torture of two men, with the US. The same US which has held Mr Assange’s source for 800 days without trial) and those dodgy South Americans



It’s a distinction without a difference. The country which facilitates persecution is no better than the country which persecutes.

And similarly they are a number who don’t.



A sovereign, independent, democratically elected country has granted him political asylum. If we ever, ever, want others to respect a British decision to grant political asylum, then we should probably respect other nations when they do it.







Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat



Aye, the presumption of innocence is a novel concept to some. But western jurisprudence has been based on it for about 1400 years and its served us pretty well up to now

Right, I give up. Life's too short. Nope, you're right Smokey. The legal system should demand someone is prosecuted, tried and convicted BEFORE they can be arrested. Political asylum to non-politically threatened people fleeing the justice system doesn't interfere with the justice system. Ecuador is Sweden. Black is white. White is black.

Or conversely, I can go to Sweden, say you raped me, then you can leave your job, family, home, responsibilities and spend months of your life trying to prove a negative. Good plan, seems fair.

I find all conspiracy theories unlikely by default. And I haven't at any point suggested that the Ecuadorian government has just decided to play 'silly buggers'. There are a number of perfectly good political reasons for Ecuador to have acted as they have - none of which involve the relative merits of the actual case. The clots in charge of our own government didn't exactly help with their ill-judged sabre-rattling.





The only person to even raise the alleged untrustworthiness of 'dodgy South Americans' is you. I am aware of the previous incidents involving the Swedes that you refer to, and it is highly unlikely that they would be able to get away with anything like the same again - even if they wanted to - given the high profile of the Assange case.





It's a distinction which Ecuador itself has made. The request for Sweden to promise to override it's own laws and judicial system was simply smoke and mirrors - no democracy could have agreed to that request.





Which would indicate that it's not quite as clear-cut as you claim, no?





We have a legal duty to comply with the EAW which was legally presented to us and tested at every level of our judicial system. Moreover, Assange has now committed a crime right here in the UK. Are you suggesting that we simply ignore our treaty obligation with the EU and also our own laws?





If you can indicate where a presumption of guilt has been made then you might have a point. Good luck with that.

Straw man.

If I'd been in the same hotel room in Sweden at the same time as you then you might have a case, particularly if someone else says I committed similar crimes against them.



A very simple question for you - do you think rape allegations should be fully investigated?

The Ecuadorians making their decision on a political basis and not on the actual merits of case is perfectly reasonable, the swedes making their decision on a political basis and not on the actual merits of the case, conspiracy theory and unlikely by default. Seems like a double standard to me.



Would you trust your life on this 'unlikeliness' of this happening? again? Bradley Manning is still in jail, now, without trial. The hundreds held in Guantanamo bay for years without trial, many for years. The US has proven itself not to follow due process, not to give people a fair and speedy trial. Ecuador felt that Sweden couldnt guarantee, through itself and third parties to which it would give custody of Mr Assange, a fair and speedy trial, due process, and protection from torture and the death penalty from political persecution. Sweden has already failed to give that protection to other people. Regardless of whatever you want to dismiss as 'conspiracy theories' it doesnt alter the fact that a person was claiming asylum from Ecuador, and Ecuador as a free, democratic nation, decided that that person faced the possibility of persecution from a country which has a history of denying justice to the accused, via a third party which has history of being complicit in the torture and rendition of people found guilty of no crime. Seems a fairly noble intention to me.

A democracy could have very easily agreed to that request. There is nothing to stop Sweden asking the questions they need to ask in the Ecuadorian embassy. There is no reason the Swedes cannot say you will stand trial for the crimes which you have been accused in this country (if it ever gets that far), whilst that trial is ongoing we will not consider any request for extradition, there is provision within most extradition treaties for such a situaiton. They are a free and democratic nation capable of making their own decisions.



It doesnt matter what i think, or what you think, or realistically what the British government think. It matters what the Ecuadorian government thinks as asylum has been requested there. If we want countries to respect the decisions we make in these matters, we must respect the decisions made by other countries.



Im suggesting it is wrong and immoral for us, as a nation, to extradite anyone, where a prima facie case cannot be presented, and that if we have no movement within our current laws, then our current laws are wrong and as a free democratic nation we should remove them. And also that it is a good thing, something we should respect, that the world has a process where asylum can be granted to someone who is in danger of being punished by a wrong and immoral law. Like someone being forcibly extradited with no prima facie evidence, or maybe a Saudi Woman facing 6 months in prison and 200 lashes for being raped, or many other of the wrong and immoral laws which sadly exist in this world.



you said [iThe problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.[/i presuming Assanges version of events is wrong is a presumption of guilt. [ithe burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies[/i. It is up to the Swedish Authorities to prove that there is a case against Assange before they can punish him. Extradition and detention is quite obviously a punishment.

So all the evidence i would need for you to accept their is case for you to answer, in a court of law, in a different country, for rape, is that we were in the same room? and somebody else i knew levelled similar accusations but only after cooking you breakfast, bragging about it on twitter, and then met me to discuss it?

Yes, within the confines of due process, a fair and speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. I

No because it's not about me accepting it, of course I'd not accept because I'd know I hadnt raped you. That's like saying anyone who is ever arrested shouldn't be if they don't want to be.



The entire process including the extradition and arrest warrant has been in accordance with due process. Nobody has said he is guilty, he is presumed innocent, and I'd be happy I'd receive a fair trial in Sweden.

No it isnt.



except it hasnt, because nobody has proven any case yet, even that there is any reasonable case at first glance, yet we are talking about extraditing and detaining an innocent person. Now i dont know about you, but if I was forcibly extradited and detained, i would feel like i had been punished.

Yes it is. You are saying he shouldn't be arrested because he doesn't want to be.



How is that any different to being arrested prior to trial anywhere in the world? Once again, you are saying that people can only be arrested after the case against them has been proven. The only way to prove a case is with a trial. So are you saying that the trial should take place before he is arrested?

One of the arguments being put forward for Assange not being sent to Sweden boils down to Assange saying he's innocent and therefore shouldn't be sent there, regardless of Swedish authorities determining that he has a case to answer? Absolute bonkersville. Why haven't all criminals thought of that? Its so simple its brilliant!



The other is the possibility/likelihood of Assange further being deported to the US, despite there being no evidence at all that this would be easier from Sweden (which would also insist on no death penalty) than the UK.



As for nonsense placing Ecuador as some sort of shining light with respect to human rights or following 'due process', I suggest you have a look at the records of the country according to the likes of Amnesty International before making such ludicrous claims, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech.



If Assange ever does end up skipping to Ecuador, and there seems no chance of him ever facing charges in Sweden, I hope the women involved are brave enough to come forward and give their memories of what happened. Perhaps some of Assange's defenders would feel less comfortable if a human face was put on these accusations, as to me they ought to be first and foremost to everyone, not some afterthought.



Still, who cares about the rights of a couple of women who may have been the victims of real crime when we can spout cr*p about Sweden and appoint Ecuador and its President as defenders of freedom whilst sticking two fingers up at the US?

The last line gives away the motives of the Assange defenders IMO If he was facing the possibility of being extradited to Canada there wouldn't be half this fuss.

Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482

Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482

Quote tb="tb"Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482'" A more thorough debunking of the pro-Assange piffle would be difficult to envisage.

Quote tb="tb"Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition While Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482'" A more thorough debunking of the pro-Assange piffle would be difficult to envisage.

Quote tb="tb"Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition'" I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer. It is wrong that we have allowed laws like this to exist in this country. And a couple of those points are the authors opinion, not fact. Quote tbWhile Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482'" This seems to simply fall back on the trustworthy ol' swedes dodgy south americans argument. We arent perfect, Sweden isnt perfect. If anything the past decade should have taught is its that the relationship between our government and our press is much further away from ideal than we could have even imagined. I would imagine that situations reversed that the cases of people like David Kelly and the phone hacking scandal would be used in similar circumstances to discredit the relationship between the British press and Government. I also imagine that there wouldnt be the clamour here for a British citizen to be extradited from a Swedish embassy to Ecuador to face the same charges after said British citzen had blown the whistle on some pretty immoral military action by the Colombian government. The author of the first link even provides a handy example of the British criminal justice system persecuting somebody and pretty much ruining their life even though they were innocent of all charges www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... imon-walsh If Mr Assange is proven innocent, we have been complicit to making the same error in justice of subjecting someone to de facto punishment prior to there actually been proof of guilt.

Quote tb="tb"Worth a read (particularly by Smokey) www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition'" I havent actually argued anywhere that it isnt legal for Sweden to demand extradition, simply that it is wrong (morally, not legally) that a man can be forcibly extradited and detained, from this country, without it being proved there is a prima facie case for him to answer. It is wrong that we have allowed laws like this to exist in this country. And a couple of those points are the authors opinion, not fact. Quote tbWhile Mr Assange might want to read this www.democraticunderground.com/10021160482'" This seems to simply fall back on the trustworthy ol' swedes dodgy south americans argument. We arent perfect, Sweden isnt perfect. If anything the past decade should have taught is its that the relationship between our government and our press is much further away from ideal than we could have even imagined. I would imagine that situations reversed that the cases of people like David Kelly and the phone hacking scandal would be used in similar circumstances to discredit the relationship between the British press and Government. I also imagine that there wouldnt be the clamour here for a British citizen to be extradited from a Swedish embassy to Ecuador to face the same charges after said British citzen had blown the whistle on some pretty immoral military action by the Colombian government. The author of the first link even provides a handy example of the British criminal justice system persecuting somebody and pretty much ruining their life even though they were innocent of all charges www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... imon-walsh If Mr Assange is proven innocent, we have been complicit to making the same error in justice of subjecting someone to de facto punishment prior to there actually been proof of guilt.