Let's clarify this situation.

Julian Assange has been accused of raping two women, i.e. having sex with them against their will: in one case, while the woman was sleeping, in the other case persisting when the woman objected to sex without a condom. If he did his as they assert, then what he did comes within the definition of rape - or am I just too far behind the times in this modern world ? Are these women just drama queens ? Should we tell them to just suck it up ?

Anyway, if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged, then he is guilty of having committed rape. If that is the case, he is a rapist.

When he finishes his sentence, he will be released and either returned to Britain, from whence he is to be extradited, OR he will be free to go where he likes. Any proceedings by the US to extradite him to the US would have to proceed from Britain.

Some suggest that this is all so unjust, a rapist persecuted by the US - but I keep forgetting, he's one of OUR rapists, isn't he ?

Come on, sisters, why aren't you out in the streets ?

Joe

<<Anyway, if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged>>

Nobody has a problem with Assange being found guilty of rape, not even Assange himself, but he will NOT be found guilty, and he will not be found innocent either: instead he will be sent straight away to the USA in accordance with a "prisoner exchange" treaty that Sweden has with the USA, and then he will never return to Sweden (except perhaps as a ghost).

... i do so love irony ... thanks for the thoughtful posts (or are you just trying to make me giggle?) ... 'interference in the legal process' you say? ... hmmmm, correct me if my research is incorrect, but is not the reason for the appeals against extradition to Sweden that the process has not been duly followed? ... and again, my understanding of the facts do not fit with 'if he is taken to Sweden and is found guilty as charged' ... so far as i was aware, there are not yet any charges ... as i am obviously missing many of the facts, can my forum contributors bring me up to date ... and please pass on the source that assists you in managing to stay ahead of my simple understandings ... have there been leaks? ... please, do tell ... i would love to know as much as you guys do ...

... and as for Thomson, i am certain you people of superior standing and judgement will make the appropriate admissions and apology should it be shown that your judgement was premature (or should that be immature? ... no premature is probably more accurate a description) ... due process you say? ... then go and look again - as it appears that you have missed plenty (or are you just towing the company line perhaps? - brilliant!!) ...

... and before you get all 'bloody leftie' on me, i can tell you i have no wings ... i do not subscribe to any of your left/right political fumblings ... those terms and references as old and anachronistic as the cold war ...

So, Yuyutsu, you are serious rather than being heavily ironic.

Given you assume that Assange is to be transferred by the Swedes to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden from the UK, I cannot see why the US is bothering with the rigmorale to date, and have not simply taken him from the UK.

The Strasbourg Convention (the multilateral prisoner exchange treaty to which you refer) includes among its numerous adherents not only the USA and Sweden but the UK. The convention applies however only to convicted prisoners, and only for their transfer to a country in which they are a citizen. Hence it is not being used by Sweden in its application for the extradition of Assange. Finally - it requires the agreement of the prisoner before the transfer can take place.

It is therefore entirely inapplicable to Assange, at present because he is not convicted but even if this occurs because the Convention does not include Australia and Australia is the only possible destination for continued detention.

Thus if Assange is to be spirited off the the USA without his agreement, legally the process is the same as that he is going through at present (extradition, and could be done as conveniently from the UK or anywhere else in the world as Sweden. Prisoner exchange treaties are entirely irrelevant.

There seems no justification to construct elaborate conspiracy theories when a simple explanation is in existence - Assange has to face a strong prima facie case of sexual offences in Sweden.

As I have indicated in an earlier post, the Corby case has many parallels, including a strong prima facie case, unnecessary and elaborate conspiracy theories, and a failure to understand non-Anglo legal systems. The misogyny and Angloceltic superiority demonstrated by many Assange supporters is distressing for progressives who know Sweden as an example of an advanced social democracy with strong protection of human rights. Indeed the fact that Assange is being questioned about his behaviour is a result of this high regard for social democracy and human rights - not the reverse.

Yuyutsu,

If Assange is extradited to Sweden and charged with rape, and found guilty, then this rapist will do his time in Sweden - or not, if his sentence is suspended. He then has the legal options of returning to Britain or going to another country.

The US cannot legally extradite him from Sweden until he has completed his sentence since, technically, he comes under the protection of British law, i.e. as the law of the country from which he will be extradited and to which he would be returned - unless he wishes to go elsewhere, since after all, even rapists have some say in the matter of where they want to go after they have done their time.

Once he has done his time and goes either back to Britain or to another country, the US would be quite within their rights to attempt to extradite him to the US from there, if they can demonstrate that he has committed crimes against the US in some way. If they don't try to extradite him, then he can go where he likes. If they make a case sufficient for him to be extradited, and tried, and found guilty, then he faces the consequences. But there are a hell of a lot of steps in all of that process.

$ 50 says he will not be extradited to the US from Sweden, but from Britain or another country.

Cheers,

Joe

As I understand it, or as I read somewhere, there is a special treaty between the USA and Sweden that allows them to "lend" detainees to each other before trial, so they can be trialed first in the other country. This has nothing to do with the Strasbourg Convention and the UK has no similar arrangements. Somehow they have a way to work around and not call it "extradition", but something like sending the person "on loan". Practically, it's the same.