No, im saying he shouldnt be forcibly extradited and detained without the Swedish prosecutors proving to a British judge that this case will, justifiably, go to trial.
But this case may not go to trial, we arent at a stage of making that decision yet. That is the issue. We are forcibly extraditing someone to face a trial which may or may not go ahead.

I tell you what's not 'moral', Smokes – the readiness with which the disciples of St Julian of Assange are acting as bloody apologists for rape.

Plus there's the sheer ignorance of the fact that different country's judicial systems don't all actually work in the same way as that in the UK.

And he has had three opportunities to challenge the European arrest warrant, before three different courts, and all believe there is no reason to overturn the decision.

Of course, he could just stop being a cowardly twok and go to Sweden and face the arrest and the charges – and any further process. If he's innocent he will then be free.

If not, he'll serve the due punishment.

But this seems to be rocket science for his cultists.

[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.fr/2012/08/dancing-to-beat-of-st-julian.htmlFWIW, my thoughts on the subject.[/url

[url=http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.coStuff here about the Swedish judicial system re arrest, charge etc.[/url

In what way have i apologised for rape? at all?

I understand the swedish judicial system is different, the Saudi justice system is also different. I can accept they are different, i dont have to accept they are right.

But again, that is an argument that a suspect shouldn't be arrested before they are charged, which is daft.
We arent at that stage because that stage HAS to come AFTER an arrest, that's the only way an effective system could ever work. Otherwise you would have a situation where prosecutors are charging suspects without hearing their evidence.

Oh and a prima facie case has been made, that's why the arrest warrant was deemed legal.

No, im not. Im not saying anything even close to people needing to be charged before they are arrested. im saying there is a difference between arrest and forcible extradition and detention and the standard and need for proof should be higher because the effect of forcible extradition and detention on someone we are supposed to presume is innocent is much greater.

No you are suggesting that a decision to charge should already have been made before the suspect is arrested, as the decision to charge is necessary for a trial to be held.

No, im not.

Really?

Well then, if you have such great understanding, why are you claiming that it would be "immoral" for him to be sent back to Sweden to face a judicial process that is at advanced stage?

This is one of the tenets of the faithful – and in it, the two women have become unimportant, just as Bradley Manning was/is to St Julian the sociopath.

PS: he's a free-market capitalist, BTW, not some arch revolutionary. It's one of the ironies of some on the left wetting their knickers over him.

yes. The second occurs when the suspect has fled the jurisdiction of the court and police authorities to prevent the first happening

And, of course, there was a very simple course open to Assange to avoid the forcible extradition and detention following the European Arrest Warrent - simply return to Sweden under his own steam and clear his name, in a trial if necessary.

Because i dont think the necessary evidence has been shown to justify forcible extradition and detention.

You are being silly. It is sad that we dont catch all rapists, its terrible that so many get away with it. But nobody, even rape victims, benefits from innocent people being punished.
Our attempts to bring justice for rape victims are only undermined by us punishing innocent people as we presume Assange is, or we are supposed to presume he is.

No, the second occurs when the suspect is in a different jurisdiction. Your criteria arent pre-requisites.

And obviously you know better than three different courts and goodness know how many lawyers, including people like David Allen Green.



in which case, nobody will ever be extradited if they have not already been tried.

Jebus effing wept.

And you call me "silly".

Oh, BTW, did you catch the bit about that bastion of free speech, Ecuador, preparing to send back to that other bastion of human rights, Belarus, someone they'd given asylum to?

WTF does it say about Assange that he picks a country where free speech and freedoms of the press are going down the toilet? sounds like a consistent approach to ethics ...

Although, if he understood what ethics were, he might not have coughed up Bradley Manning to the authorities quite so quickly, eh? But then he doesn't care. About anything except himself.

He's a cowardly, sociopathic narcissist with a messiah complex.

And some people fall for it.

Smokey, it has been proved he has a case to answer, other than a trial what other way could the Swedish authorities prove to you that he should be extradited?

George Galloway showing how utterly crazy he is by describing rape as "bad sexual etiquette".

What else would you expect from the man?

How can it have been proved he has a case to answer when he has not even been formally questioned ? The EAW is for his extradition so he can be questioned, not for him to be prosecuted, which is not in accordance with the rules for EAW's.

Furthermore, how can an arrest warrant be issued by a prosecutor - surely such a warrant should be issued by an impartial party such as a judge ? A prosecutor can not, and should not, constitute a relevant judicial authority.

The EAW system is open to abuse, as the less publicised case of Dr Miguel-Angel Meizoso shows.

I am not a fan of Assange by any measure but this whole saga is tainted with the underlying notion that we are once again being the US's poodle.

You are making the breathtaking claim that we should say "No, we will break European law and fail to comply with a valid legal extradition, because we assume that once Assange gets to Sweden, a) the US will ask for his extradition from there and b) the Swedish judicial system is so corrupt that any legal challenge by Assange to such extradition would be doomed to failure because Sweden would not comply with its own laws on extradition".

If that is the case then you are quite deluded. How the fsck is the UK complying with a valid EAW, after due process of appeal, even remotely connectable with US and poodles?

There is a valid legal process in England that he has gone through and failed. Tough. Now we have to abide by the law, and even if it ends up that Assange IS ultimately extradited to the US, any complaint he might have about that could only ever be against the Swedish legal system.

Of course he has a case to answer, 2 women have accused him of rape and sexual crimes. The Swedish authorities have investigated and decided he has a case to answer in Sweden, considering he is refusing to go to Sweden, how do you think the Swedish should question him. Are you another one who assumes a trial should take place before he is arrested?

No the EAW is to arrest him, that's why it's called an arrest warrant. An arrest usually has to be done before someone is prosecuted.

Why shouldn't a prosecutor issue an arrest warrant? And why isn't a prosecutor a relevant judicial authority? A prosecutor is, by definition, a relevant judicial authority.

This kind of thinking, that Sweden and the UK are so totally corrupted that its all a big plan to get Assange to the US, is just bizarre to me, its just fantasy, conspiracy-theorist guff on the same level as alien autopsy's and Elvis isn't really dead.

So do you think the Police in this country call up someone who's jumped bail and have a quit chat with him before they arrest him? Of course not, they decide to charge him if there is enough evidence to have a good chance of conviction, not if it's guaranteed. So the Swedes have decided that there is a good chance of conviction and have had him arrested.

Would you be raising as much fuss if he'd been arrested in London as Glasgow Police were looking for him for committing a crime? It's essentially the same system, just scaled up. All the checks and balances have been made - more so than for an accused man transferring from London to Glasgow - and so it's time he proved his innocence.

I don't think there's much point in arguing with Smokey. Nothing can get to him whilst he's wearing his foil hat.

So you didn't bother reading any of the earlier links then?