Assange Ruling - Un

[agchristie]

How controversial is this ruling going to be?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35490910

[andy-hughes]

Very - but since it is not legally binding, it does not change anything.

Mr Assange claims he is innocent - which he would wouldn't he - and advised that if this ruling went against him, he would submit to arrest.

However, it is little more than additional publicity for Mr Assange's case - it adds and subtracts nothing from the legal process involved, but there will be plenty of talking heads interviewing each other about it in the media.

[agchristie]

Andy > advised that if this ruling went against him, he would submit to arrest.

I think he stated that as indications were already given in December that the ruling would be in his favour.

The impasse seems set to continue for some time yet.

[Gromit]

He can now claim compensation, which will upset quite a few ABers :-)

[agchristie]

Gromit,

I'm just happy to have one of the few copies of 'The Wikileaks Files' which he signed, dated and added 'Embassy of Ecuador' !

[dave50]

Do you think giving a shed load of money to anyone with a grievance is ok then Gromit?

[youngmafbog]

Yes, Gromit would love to see UK cash being given to anyone providing they are not British.

There is a European Arrest warrant on him. The UK has a duty not to let him flee. He imprisoned himself and even today no one is forcing him to stay. To me it is tantamount to an admission of guilt to a rape charge.

[agchristie]

Youngmafbog > To me it is tantamount to an admission of guilt to a rape charge.

I don't agree on that point. It is the bigger picture that he fears that he will be extradited to the US.

He wants to go to France but that's not going to happen.

[andy-hughes]

youngmafbog - //Yes, Gromit would love to see UK cash being given to anyone providing they are not British.//

You appear to know Gromit's view on the subject of cash being given, even though he has given no indication that this is what he thinks - maybe you should wait until he posts his own onion, without you giving it to him?

//There is a European Arrest warrant on him. The UK has a duty not to let him flee. He imprisoned himself and even today no one is forcing him to stay. To me it is tantamount to an admission of guilt to a rape charge. //

It is nothing of the sort.

Mr Assange remains innocent until proven guilty - his unwillingness to make himself available to be tried does not indicate his guilt or innocence in any way shape or form.

[agchristie]

Andy > Can I refer to your first post regarding the comment about his innocence. I may have wrongly detected some sarcasm given your reply to YMG?

[Ellipsis]

Nobody is making him stay in the embassy.

He was on bail in the UK when he fled to Ecuador's embassy. He fled bail!

The UK wished, and still wishes, to extradite him to Sweden under the terms of a European Arrest Warrant.

Now, Sweden is hardly a bad country when it comes to human rights. Better than Ecuador.

[andy-hughes]

agchristie - //Andy > Can I refer to your first post regarding the comment about his innocence. I may have wrongly detected some sarcasm given your reply to YMG? //

My apologies for any incorrect impression.

I did say that Mr Assange would naturally say that his is innocent, I did not intend to infer that I think he is not - my firm and oft-stated belief is that any accused remains innocent until proven otherwise.

So my post to YMB was entirely serious, and without irony.

[agchristie]

Andy, thanks for your clarification. You are, of course, correct and the rape charge has not been fully examined and it is wrong to assume his guilt.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis > Sweden is hardly a bad country when it comes to human rights.

Correct, though the expected ruling would be an embarassment to Sweden and the UK.

I reiterate, this is more about how the US may treat him.

Traitor or hero of free speech? I think we know what the US authorities would say...

[Ellipsis]

> I reiterate, this is more about how the US may treat him.

Not our problem. We have a duty to extradite him to Sweden to face a rape charge. He jumped bail in our country to avoid that extradition.

Sweden does not have such a poor human rights record that we can come up with any reason not to extradite him to Sweden. The fact that Sweden may or may not extradite him to the US is their call, not ours; it's our role to help the Swedes bring him to trial for the charges he faces in Sweden.

If we don't extradite him, what are we saying? That we're better than the US and can second-guess friendly Sweden and what they'll do with him? Not our role.

[agchristie]

Ellipsis > it's our role to help the Swedes bring him to trial for the charges he faces in Sweden.

Do you accept then that it was justifiable that the Police spent nearly 13m stood outside for 3 years?

I agree largely with your statement however.

[bazwillrun]

If hes arrested he will be handed to the swedes, they will then hand him over to the septics...thats the issue, not the swedes and their handling of ooman rights per se !

the swedes have already changed/reduced the charges they want him for...this is all about the septics !...

[Ellipsis]

I don't know. He's a high profile case. £13M may be justifiable in the circumstances although, from recent history, it appears we could have spent less and he still would not have fled.

[agchristie]

bazwillrun > they will then hand him over to the septics

The Amendment which is supposed to protect journalists, broadcasters, etc is interesting.

Presidemt Obama has prosecuted more people than all previous Presidents put together....

[Ellipsis]

> the swedes have already changed/reduced the charges they want him for...

This is not through any new evidence, simply that they have a statute of limitations which means he can no longer be tried for the lesser charges. After 2020 he won't even be able to be tried on the more serious rape charge, so there's an end in sight for him ...

> this is all about the septics !...

You may be right, even though the US has not applied for extradition from either the US or Sweden as yet. The reason that the US comes into it is that Assange is worried he'll face the death penalty, and this is why Sweden's human rights record is important ... i.e. is Sweden more or less likely than the UK to extradite Assange to the US to face charges that may result in a death penalty?

[agchristie]

Ellipsis > it appears we could have spent less and he still would not have fled.

Without a shadow of a doubt especially since the Police are currently using other covert methods!