We havent.

I understand that. I think it is wrong.

I appreciate that, I think it is wrong to forcibly extradite someone on that basis.

He was told he could leave Sweden. Regardless, there being an allegation and him not being in Sweden, arent good enough reasons to forcibly extradite someone to Sweden

Yes, we have.

You realise there are treaties which cover this, right? And that our courts have the right to turn down any extradition request anyway? And the Assange case has been examined by the highest court in the land?

No, we havent.

The Assange case hasn’t been seen by the highest court in the land, the highest court in the land had no evidence put before it and looked at no evidence because it wasn’t within its remit to do so. This is wrong. We are planning on extraditing a man with no thought as to whether this is the right and just thing to do. This is wrong.

We are extraditing him because some admin was done correctly; we have attempted to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for anything other than checking that admin was done correctly. This is wrong, We have as much of a duty to prevent people being extradited as an abuse of due process and as a use of the law to harass an individual as we do to prevent people in this country suffering an abuse of due process and from use of the law to harass an individual.

You put your left leg in, your left leg out, in out, in out, and shake it all about.....Sorry, just practising for tonights party.

so, what about the rights of the women whom he raped, or the breach of national security he is guilty of in the USA

the man is a snake, and should be treated as such.

I'm sorry but that is absurd. This area is one of the simplest in the case; the investigation in Sweden includes a rape allegation, and here, as there, an allegation of rape is serious.

If he was accused of exactly the same thing in this country, would it be "not right" or "unjust" that he be arrested and taken for questioning to the police station in the area where the alleged offence had been committed? Of course not.

What material difference does it make if that area is in fact as here a different country? You seem to be arguing that leaving the country where the rape allegation is being investigated somehow of itself makes it unjust for you to have to go back.

I think you are also suggesting that in such a case, the UK should first investigate, and decide whether or not there is enough evidence of rape, before sending him back. Exactly how would we do that? Send a team of rozzers and CPS over to Sweden to do their police and prosecutors job for them?

With regard to that particular charge, the case appears to be that, indisputably, Assange inserted (thanks George) his unprotected penis into a woman, and the contentious areas seem to centre on claims (a) she was asleep and did not consent to this insertion and (b) he knew that in any event she only consented to protected sex.

Why you would pick on such a case as being somehow an example of injustice, I can't think. Would you say the same if it was your daughter who was the complainant? To me, this is plainly an allegation that the Swedish prosecutors and, if they think fit, the Swedish courts, should consider and rule upon, and there's nothing unjust about it.

The final word must be this: if Assange had stayed in Sweden, would you say it was not right, or unjust, that he should be brought in for questioning under the Swedish warrant for his arrest? I can't see how you could say that, since their system would plainly only be doing its job.

Sorry but pure disingenuous tosh. Unless you are suggesting that the authorities in Sweden agreed to the proposition that he should permanently absent himself?

This sort of [ireductio ad absurdum[/i just makes you look stupid. The issue is nothing to do with whether or not he could or couldn't leave Sweden, Europe or the planet, but whether at some point he would return to answer questions. From wherever in the universe he happened to be when asked. It's not that he left, it's that he won't go back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Even more absurd.

There being a serious rape allegation is a good enough reason for him to be arrested and brought in for questioning.

Him not being in Sweden and not intending to return IS the reason why an extradition is the only method of them achieving those aims.

The term "forcibly" is meaningless in this context since extradition presupposes that the person isn't going to go back unless forced to do so, so I have no clue why you used it.

Thankfully, the rule of law is much more important than your hissy fit.

We moved away from your kind of thinking in the middle ages.

My Irony-O-Meter just exploded.

It really is a mess all this, isn't it? Do you know what I'd have to put it down too? See the two rape complainants, 'casualties of war' like many on here have surmised in the past. Just like them photographers killed by that US helicopter gunship in Iraq. It's a tough world we live in!

What war?

And I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs make a right' kind of guy.

Sorry, are you really saying that going in to a police station is not materially different from being forcibly extradited? Really?
No, it would be up to the Swedes to do that, come back with their evidence and say we want you to extradite because ........ and here is the evidence we are basing that request on. We then look at it, say, yeah that looks like you have a pretty good case, lets extradite or no, Sweden you are talking nonsense, you have no evidence we arent going to extradite.


I dont think the fact it is an emotive accusation means we should be free to forcibly extradite someone based purely on an accusation.

And as i have said, i dont disagree that the swedish authorities should investigate and if necessary rule on, i also think we (the uk) should ask for a higher standard of evidence (or even some) before we forcibly extradite someone.

as for your last question, If he had stayed in Sweden, we wouldn’t be extraditing him and as such would have no duty to make sure we were doing it in a fair way. I don’t think it would be wrong for the British government to be held responsible for consequences of extradition for the people they extradite and not for the people they don’t.

Come off it Kosh...Have you seen the state of that 'Jule's' geezer? If we didn't know better we'd have thought he batted for t'other side....the most he's done is fingered them two birds, tops. He aint got a good sh@g in 'im! We know the ones who really got fooked in all this, don't we??? See 'Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq' as a starting point!

No, im saying he was free to leave Sweden, was told he could leave Sweden and as a free man, when he left Sweden, he was under no obligation to ever wilfully return to Sweden. Which is what I said, not the weird straw man you just invented
Someone saying you did something, presenting no evidence to corroborate it, and them being in a different country isn’t a good reason to force someone to leave their job, home, and life to travel to another country and face their justice system and their procedures. If it were we would have the same extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia and we would be deporting rape victims for a flogging.
No it isnt, there is a difference between forcible extradtion and extradition. One involves force, one doesnt. We are, and have been threatening a forcible extradition.

You realise he hasn't denied what happened, right? He's only arguing consent?

Once again, I didn't have you down as a 'two wrongs' guy. And you haven't told me what 'war' you consider the two alleged rape victims to be part of.

The imaginary 'War on Terror'. Jump out of that box now and again mate.

Ah. Your tin foil hat has come into play I see.

WTF?

The analogy is if he was still in Sweden he would rightly have got his collar felt and been escorted ("forcibly"icon_wink.gif to the station for questioning. In this respect, the only material difference is how far it is to the police station, and its him who has put the extra miles between himself and it.

The difference is what he is wanted at that police station for. If it was for parking on a yellow line, he would not be extradited, but as the allegation is rape, he would.

Unless you have concealed some other point in your cryptic question, I trust that answers it?


The whole point of an EU-wide system was based on the fact that the starting point is that EU countries can - or ought to be able to - trust each other's investigative systems to presume that the investigation is done fairly. That is the whole point of the EAW procedures. You are in effect saying that we shouldn't have passed the law, because Sweden can't be trusted, but we did. Write to your MP. I am discussing the situation as it is, although the basic premise seems very sound to me.


Stop saying "forcibly"! When was there ever a voluntary extradition?!


Er, well, no. I must give you that one. It hadn't occurred to me that Sweden would not ask us to extradite someone who wasn't here, but there, but I agree it is unlikely they would.


The trouble with pesky things like EU-wide laws is that they have to spell out a precise legal framework for all people in all EU countries. So we reasonably do not use "in a fair way", which could mean anything or nothing, and instead we use "in accordance with the specific legal requirements agreed by all member states and set out in specific legal documents X, Y and Z". So that any person can know precisely where they stand.

That way, the question is not "is it fair"? but "is it or is it not compliant with the law".

And if it is compliant with the law, but you still think it is unfair, then you can even take that one up with the ECHR - provided the unfairness alleged is within the relevant scope.





What exactly ARE the consequences of extradition for people the British government doesn't extradite? My head hurts.

'I can see clearly now the rain has gone.....' Off for some dinnertime Stella. Keep up the good work.

I would have thought the point quite obvious, that extradition to another country has a bit more of an impact on a person we presume is innocent and is quite a bit more serious, than a trip down the road.

And I have said clearly, a number of times that is what is wrong with this situation.

Yes.
Had you not split the sentence up, you would have understood the point wasnt the nonsense you have put there, but the fact that the UK would have no part in the process and as such no responsibility for it. As we do have a part in it, we have a responsibility for it, " but we thought we could trust the Swedes, with their blonde hair and blue eyes" isnt a valid defence if we are complicit in a miscarriage of justice or the use of the law to harass an individual.

That is true, but we are still responsible for the consequences of us obeying that law. If we obey that law and it leads to a miscarriage of justice or use of the law to harass an individual then we are still responsible even though we have that law.

It isnt, but that doesnt absolve us of responsibility for ensuring someone is dealt with fairly, and that somebody within a British jurisdiction is protected by British legal protections. The EAW doesnt remove our responsibility for our actions.

Try reading an entire sentence and not just part of it. Your head might feel better.

In some circumstances, to varying degrees, hypothetically, perhaps. As however we are discussing the Assange case, no, since it was his choice to leave Sweden and not go back, and his choice to come here. He can't reasonably escape the Swedish process by leaving the country, and claim it makes it somehow unfair to be sent back 'because it's a long way'.


We are not, nor would we be, complicit in anything, and the bizarre quotation may indicate you are running a fever, since of course nobody suggested or even hinted at any such ludicrous thing.

If when Assange got to Sweden there was subsequently a miscarriage of justice, he could and should deal with that in accordance with Swedish and European law. It would be nothing to do with us at all. It is ludicrous to suggest that if we extradite him "there will be a miscarriage of justice". Even you must admit that. Ditto "using the law to harass an individual".

And as neither Assange nor his lawyers have argued any such thing before the Supreme Court, purely a product of some weird thought process that you have just made up.


If you mean his Swedish problem, of course it does. When he gets back there, it is entirely up to the Swedes to ensure he is dealt with fairly. We aren't their monitor, nor, if they don't is it in any way our fault, nor in case of any such unfairness is he short of any remedy in Sweden.


So, a route up through the English judicial system, including being represented by a QC, and having your case considered by 6 law lords in the Supreme Court (and if you want it, a route to the ECHR too) is deficient as to legal protection exactly how?


I re-read it. It still makes no sense to me. If you don't want to explain whatever point you intended, fair enough.

George Galloway's comments were hardly a surprise to be honest. Making excuses for a possible rapist if it suits your own agenda is fairly typical behaviour for a leftie