We're told that Julian Assange "will soon know whether
he will be extradicted to Sweden."

As Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser to Assange explains:

"If he doesn't win it means that anyone can be
extradited from the UK, be arrested and put into
detention at the behest of any prosecutor anywhere
in Europe without having to show any evidence, without
being charged and without proper judicial oversight.
I have faith in the British justice system... it should
not and cannot stand for this sort of precedent."

Should the Australian Government interfere in this
matter - considering the Assange is an Australian
citizen. Especially as no evidence against
him has been provided and no charges made. Should
the Australian Government allow this precedent to
be made against one of its citizens?

Your thoughts would be appreciated on this issue.

Dear Lexi,

Perhaps we should wait and see the details.

But even if he were a British rather than an Australian citizen, one would expect that the British courts would expect charges and evidence to be laid before them, before they would consider any extradition application.

And one would think that they would be especially careful, given that he is an Australian citizen in Britain: surely there would be Australian legal officers or whatever in court, observing proceedings minutely ?

If Sweden lays charges and provides sufficient grounds in a British court, to extradite a non-British, non-Swedish citizen out of its jurisdiction, one would expect a series of hurdles that would have to be overcome. If their case is persuasive, the Swedes then have to extradite him, try him and find him guilty or innocent as the case may be. But all of it would be in the full glare of international publicity, you'd think.

And if he is found not guilty, he would have to be brought back to Britain or to a country of his choice before he could he extradited to the US: the US would have to go through a similar process in Britain, or another country, but not in Sweden. After all, if he is found not guilty, then he is technically still in Britain, still entitled to go back there.

Fondest,

Joe

He failed to wear a condom while having consensual sex.
In that strange country this is called? rape!
The two women? after talking about it some time after, said maybe we should ask some one.
They received advice it was rape?
Or was it truly, consensual for sure so why not insist?
America wants to get their hands on him, for distributing some truths.
They, the nation that lets its return soldiers sleep in the streets, wants a death sentence,for the young man,who gave that truth to him.
So kill both kill truth kill accountability and kiss the bad part of Americas bottom.
Or maybe, we can bring the bloke home and take the rape case to the international court.
How can we let a not rape be seen as rape?

The allegedly eminent "hHuman Rights" lawyer Jeffrey Robertson had quite a bit to say about it on Q.A. the other night (and whose comments I most enjoyed along with the often pained expressions of the politicians subjected to his clarity and insight) and anyone interested would no doubt enjoy looking up the transcript.

Allegedly, Julian (what a legend) has no concerns about going to Sweden to face the courts over there, but as said, Sweden it is claimed has a terrible reputation for extraditing persons to the likes of N.America for purposes such as rendition without due process.

One of the things that I object strongly too regarding the views of the N.american's, and seriously, I get sick of listening to them, is not because I object to hearing their view in and of itself, but because so often in this tin pot little country it is largely all we hear, in the distinct absence of the real views of the other sides.

We hear things like, "anti-american," and "anti democratic" and all of the rest of the utter pig swill, whereas as WikiLeaks demonstrates, the N.american's are lieing, cheating, thieving, murdering little bags of the proverbial and I suspect that what they most are upset about is the growing failure of their tired old propaganda techniques to provide the so called "suspension of disbelief."

..

One thing for certain, and especially for those who believe in an eye for an eye, the so called terrorists certainly have a lot of catch up to do and no doubt, that remains their intention.

Here's a link that I found interesting:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-07/news/31298879_1_founder-julian-assange-european-arrest-warrant-geoffrey-robertson

This is only one of many articles to be found on the web
and they all seem to infer that there is indeed something
fishy - about the way in which Assange is being treated.
And one does being to wonder whether the Americans are
indeed involved in all this - in wanting Assange eventually
extradited to the US. I wonder what if any action will
our government take on his behalf?

Any one of intellect would know that since Obama via another Presidential signing order,intiated The National Defence Authorisation Act,there is no justice or rule of law in the West.The US Military is now Judge,Jury and executioner in the West with no recourse or justice from any of our cherished constitutions.

The West is being consumed by a totalitariarn bankster state and few realise or have the courage to confront it.

Here's another website that adds to the intrigue of this case:

http://griffithreview.com/edition-32-wicked-problems-exquisite-dilemmas/rebel-public-nuisance-and-dreamer

I'm having some difficulty getting my mind around why
Julian Assange went about publishing tens of thousands
of secret US military reports and diplomatic cables.

Lexi

'I'm having some difficulty getting my mind around why
Julian Assange went about publishing tens of thousands
of secret US military reports and diplomatic cables.'

Its called ego.

Belly, I'm a bit surprised at you >:(

If a woman objects to sex without a condom and a bloke still goes ahead, that does sound to me like lack of consent. Rape.

If a woman wakes up and a bloke is having sex with her, without her giving consent beforehand, that also sounds to me like rape.

If these acts occurred in Sweden and if they would be considered to be rape under Swedish law, then the Swedes are perfectly entitled, obliged even, to pursue Assange through the courts and to seek his extradition. And if he is found guilty of breaking Swedish law, then he does his time.

Then he may be brought back to the UK, from which the US can then seek his extradition if they decide to go down that path.

Amazing.

Where the hell are the feminists these days ?

A bloke may (or may not) have raped a couple of their sisters, and the silence is deafening. All there seems to be these days is some half-wit like Germaine Greer who can think of little else but to complain how big Julia Gillard's @rse is. Fluff-headed women's magazines are as popular as ever. What has feminism come to ?

Joe

The precedent for Australian inaction concerning its citizens did not start with Assange. Blair protested British citizens incarcerated at Guantanamo. They were released. Howard kept quiet even though the Australians in Guantanamo had committed no crime under Australian or American law. The Australian governement has done what it could for Australians imprisoned in Asia. However, those imprisoned by the US are usually ignored.

davidf

Most Aussies could not care less about the technicalities of the law. The fact that Hicks took up arms against Western forces and trained with terrorist should disqualify him from a countries support. John Howard did the right thing in most people's eyes. The self seeking Assange is happy to poor c-ap on anyone in order to stoke his ego. That is why you get the likes of Robertson supporting such self serving people.

loudmouth I think both women could have stopped it.
Both days or weeks after talked then made the choice to call it rape.
I would never defend rape.
I truly ask who changed their minds is the USA behind it
those saying ego?
has truth no value? as is the case this morning American troops live different lives than ours body parts on display.
Should we have not seen those photos of torture?
Would we be better for not knowing about body boarding,are we able to condemn others for cutting throats on TV but not our sides crimes.
Are some humans less human than others. how can we claim the high moral ground if we condemn our side for being honest?
Tower of babble here to day.

Lexi,

As both the UK and Sweden are members of the EU, both countries while still sovereign are legally far closer than say the US and Australia, and the requirements for extradition are thus lower.

He is being extradited for questioning related to two criminal complaints, and the treaty does not require charges to be laid. Personally whilst I believe that there is a high probability of misconduct in his case, the chance of a successful prosecution is slim. This is however, irrelevant to the extradition process.

The risk that JA faces is that once in Sweden, the US can approach Sweden for him to be extradited to the US.

According to Minister Roxon, DFAT is doing 'all they can' to assist Julian Assange as an Australian citizen. I am sure there is much more they can do to advocate for a person and to ensure there is no implied agreement with the US to extradite Mr Assange should he set foot in Australia. There has been no such statement as yet by our government. No matter what you think about Julian Assange - I don't know the guy - he has done more to highlight the issue of transparency than any other person (perhaps since Ellsberg) in recent times.

Why has Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, when requesting under FOI documents relating to discussions or correspondence with the US on Assange, receive heavily redacted documents. Why was Wikileaks and human rights lawyer Jen Robinson detained temporarily at Heathrow Airport as person on a 'watchlist'. Whose watchlist?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/19/australian-wikileaks-lawyer-on-inhibited-person-travel-list/

The release of cables demonstrate entirely how far removed governments have become from the grass roots, from the people they represent.

While there is no doubt some secrecy is necessary in government, it should be a rare occurrence with a strong impetus, not the modus operandi.

The reason why there is opposition to Assange other than the usual sycophant response, is the fear that vested interests have in maintaining their overt influence over governments.

Should the Australian Government interfere in this matter - considering that Assange is an Australian citizen?

Yes and it is still not too late: Australia should send a helicopter to pick him up to the safety of an Australian navy ship or submarine - otherwise we may just as well raise the white flag and become the 51st state of the USA.

I am not sympathetic with rape, but everyone knows that the sexual charges are only a pretext and not the real issue. If the Swedes insist, then why not - let him be tried in a Swedish court by a video-link, and if found guilty, let him serve his sentence in Australia (in fact, Australian prisons are much harsher than their Swedish counterparts).

Hello there LEXI...

An interesting thread for sure.

It is my understanding, from media reports, Mr Assange has received consular assistance whilst in London. Further, apparently he's not in custody, rather he's on Bail and is receiving both legal counsel and domiciliary succour from others, who are sympathetic to his cause.

Until he's been actually charged, I'm not really sure what other assistance the Oz Govt. can do for him at this stage. I may well be corrected on this. I've not been following this matter all that closely.

Though in the matter of Mr David Hicks, notwithstanding I can't abide the man, I reckon the Oz Govt. were absolutely delinquent in failing to furnish this individual with meaningful assistance during his protracted incarceration.

As to what has motivated Mr Assange, to first source, scan and then disseminate material of a kind that's allegedly classified, and ostensibly, is the intellectual property of the United States. Well, I don't really know.

Perhaps RUNNER may have been closer to the truth, his own hubris ? Or maybe some (considerable) financial benefit could be a factor too, even both.

Personally, I wouldn't like to think I'd be silly enough, to bring about so much unfavourable attention to myself, particularly close scrutiny by the Yanks.

runner wrote: "Most Aussies could not care less about the technicalities of the law."

Dear runner,

The above is shocking. Maybe you don't care about the law, but I am under the impression that Australia is a law abiding country where all citizens are entitled to full protection of the law. In tyrannies like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia the government really doesn't have to pay attention to any law. In Australia and other democracies:

1. One cannot be imprisoned unless one has been found guilty of committing a crime.

2. A person accused of committing a crime cannot be penalised unless that person either pleads guity or is found guilty after a fair trial.

3. During a trial an accused person is presumed innocent until a jury has found that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. An Australia citizen held by authorities in another country is entitled to whatever aid can be given by Australian authorities.

Actually I think David Hicks was a dirty dog, but that is completely irrelevant. He was entitled to the same protection under Australian law that any other Australian citizen is entitled to. Under Howard that was not given to him.

I hope that most Australians do not have the lynch mob attitude that you apparently have.

david f

'The above is shocking. Maybe you don't care about the law, but I am under the impression that Australia is a law abiding country where all citizens are entitled to full protection of the law. '

Most Aussie I guess are more interested in whether someone is guilty or not. Slimy lawyers and activist are experts at finding ways of getting out of any responsibility such as Hicks whose actions were clearly despicable. You could say the same for Catholic Priests and others who have been protected from prosecution due to technicalities. Assange has pooped on the democratic nations and now wants them to protect him.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'm rather dubious I have to admit about the charges
of rape coming from these two Swedish women. It doesn't
make sense to me at least - that one would host a
party for a man who raped you. Which is what one of the
women did (and the other attended the party) a few days
after the alleged rape. The story goes that both women
only reported the supposed "rape" to the police quite
some time after the "rape" and they only went to the police
to be tested for STDs and to try to get Assange to take the
test as well. It was the police who persuaded the women
that they had a case for "rape." And that they could make
some money from selling their stories to newspapers.
A Swedish Magistrate originally had thrown their case out -
claiming - insufficient evidence. Perhaps that's why women
are not taking up this cause - because its a bit fishy.

Dear David F.,

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Australian Government
will tread very carefully regarding Julian Assange. Not wanting
to offend the US. And of course you're right. Regardless of
everything - they should help one of their own. I feel that
most Australians still believe in "Innocent until proven
Guilty," and would expect support as citizens from their
own Government.

Dear runner,

A Government has an obligation to protect all of its
citizenry.

Dear Pelly,

I also believe that there are vested interests involved
in the Assange case and these interests will try to influence
the actions of our Government.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear SM,

I'm not so sure that charges don't have to be laid
in order for a person to be extradited. I'll have to
check into that a bit more. I think according to the
British Legal System - charges do have to not only
be laid - but evidence against the person must also
be supplied. It will be interesting to see whether
the UK allows a legal precedent such as this to be
set - virtually giving any one in Europe the right
to have someone extradited on mere heresay.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You've raised some excellent points. I also suspect
that this attempt at extradition to Sweden has much
more to it then we realise.

Dear o sung wu,

I agree. It was a bit of a risk for Assange to have
published all those tens of thousands of secret US
documents. He surely must have expected that there
would be repercussions for his actions. Not sure
what category to place him in - rebel, or foolish
young man - or a bit of a dreamer - as the Griffith
link calls him.

Dear Belly,

We have to wait and see what happens next.
Interesting times ahead.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I forgot to add that most of Assange's
current legal advisers are now female.
It seems that they are volunteering
their expert legal services. Which I
guess says a great deal about his
innocence regarding the "rape" allegations.
There must be something to the fact that
females are not supporting the two Swedish
women - and their allegations against Assange.

One of the things I admire about America is its constitution.
And the brave rebels who wrote it and founded the rebellion.
That constitution guarantees free speech.
These leeks are of seemingly wrong and hidden things.
A brave or silly releasing them?
I prefer brave, and needed.
Today, after being asked not to, an American news paper printed photos of Troops displaying body parts.
Unsure if that is wrong, the act of being seen showing those parts of human bombers.
But sure it will bring retaliations.
Do we blame the news papers, the troops, should we have seen or hidden the photos?
I think no one should be free to hide the truth from us, but if weakileaks is evil what is that paper,and those troops?

runner wrote: “Most Aussie I guess are more interested in whether someone is guilty or not.”

Dear runner,

You don’t seem to get the idea. The legal technicalities you seem contemptuous of are to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and is actually found guilty through due process. Whether public opinion or the press promotes the idea that someone is guilty or whether you think the acts of David Hicks are clearly despicable is not important. What is important is that an accused gets a trial according to the legal procedures set up to ensure that the trial is fair. The attitude, “We know he’s guilty. Let’s hang him.” expresses the mind of the lynch mob.

david f

'What is important is that an accused gets a trial according to the legal procedures set up to ensure that the trial is fair.'

so you are saying that the Swedish courts (one of the bastions of humanism) are corrupt?

Dear runner,

The question is not whether the Swedish courts are fair. They may be quite fair according to their standards. However, whether Assange gets tried under those courts is questionable. The worry is that Sweden will turn Assange over to the US whereas we can feel fairly sure that England won't.

Dear runner,

Take a look at the following website:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3354730.htm

Geoffrey Robertson tells us that the warrant for Assange's
extradition was signed by an ambitious prosecutor out to
make a name for himself.
And that is the point that Robertson is making - he's
questioning the legality of something that comes from a
biased prosecutor. The Courts in Sweden for "rape" trials
are held in secret. There is no jury - merely judges -
and - Robertson claims that Assange will definitely not
receive a fair trial. Read the link for yourself.

Lexi

So you don't trust the Dutch courts?

Dear runner,

Did you not read what Geoffrey Robertson
had to say on Lateline?

Lexi,

Geoffrey Robertson makes the Swedish system sound like a kangaroo court where it is far from so.

The court is based on the Roman Dutch system of a Judge and 2 assessors. The assessors are required to have a legal background in the matter at hand, but can be civilians, and can be disqualified if shown to have any particular prejudice. In many cases it can be argued that this is better than the judge and jury system we have. Similarly prosecutors have different powers to what they have here.

To assume that their legal system is flawed is somewhat parochial.

Dear SM,

From my understanding - Geoffrey Robertson was more
critical of the prosecutor's agenda and the warrant
that he's issued and his motives in pursuing
Assange. And the legality of it all - coming from
an individual rather than the Courts themselves.
I surmise that Robertson feels that the deck would
be stacked against Assange - and that he would not
get a fair hearing in this case. And it's this case
that is of concern to Robertson.

Lexi,

As far as the legality is concerned, Sweden, France, Italy and many other countries have warrants issued from the prosecutor's office, so the English system is more of an anomaly. These warrants are seldom issued on a whim, and require some level of evidence. The word of one complainant would be very unlikely to be sufficient, however, two women with corroborating stories is far more persuasive.

The motive of the women and the prosecutor might get him to court, but as the judge and assessors are independent, and with the attention, it is getting I doubt they would risk their careers with shonky judgments.

The concern that JA has is that once he is in Sweden, the US will apply to extradite him to the US.

Dear SM,

I personally feel that the entire business reeks.
These two women are a bit suss - changing their
stories to suit themselves - and their actions
(especially giving and attending a party for
Assange a few days after the supposed "rape")
belies the charges they are claiming. It seems
that they do have other motives (including possibly -
financial ones).

Also I listened to the news on TV and it seems that
Julian Assange's Australian female legal adviser
has been stopped from travelling freely by plane
and has to apply for permission from Australia House
before she can do so.

As I stated earlier - it appears that
someone else is pulling the strings here.
We need to ask - Why?

Very very unlike you Lexi to claim that woman claiming rape might just be making it up. Hmmm.

Dear runner,

What do you mean it's very unlike me to
question something that doesn't appear to be
quite right. Searching for the facts is part of
my professional training. Are you just simply
stirring?

Dearest Lexi,

As usual, I agree with Runner in his last comment. Surely you must be aware of the ambivalence that victims of abuse may feel towards the alleged abuser ? The years that an abused young girl spends in the same household with her abuser, before she puts it all together and either leaves or registers a complaint against him ?

Before we get too paranoid about all this particular instance, let's look at the facts. Two women have laid complaints against Assange, on grounds which, if true, even you, I'm sure, would not put up with yourself. Whatever happened to "If it's not on, it's not on"? And since when does forcing oneself on a sleeping woman constitute consent ? What the hell is happening to the sisterhood ?

Does he have a case to answer ? Never mind all the cunning plans being launched by the CIA or MI5 or Mossad or whoever - does he have a case to answer ?

That's up to the courts to decide, British justice at its finest, in the full glare of disclosure and transparency. Let's wait and see, and keep demanding a transparent process :)

Cheers,

Joe

Thank you for your post Lexi on this critical issue.

As concerned as I am about the plight of Julian Assange himself, I think the issue of the status of the sanctity of Australian citizenship is clearly at stake here. If this has not already gone by the wayside ?, even in the case of David Hicks, whom presumably did not deserve to experience rendition, torture and imprisonment at Gitmo for so long without Australian Govt intervention. In the case of Manduh Habib, he was rendered tortured and imprisoned and was still was not charged with any wrong doing.

You would have to be proud to have a guy that can endure all that, still refers too himself as an Australian citizen, despite his Govt ever compensating him appropriately for the injustices committed against him.

Equally Assange is another brave Australian, doing what Australians once did. Backing up their beliefs with actions, is doing what activists do. Too actively search for the truth and make sure that as many people know the truth as possible. Assange's Wikileaks is simply an activist movement in the computer age. If all the wikileaks users were in one city at the same time it would be a mighty big peaceful demonstration that would take an awful lot of police on horses too ride over the top of. If the US or the oligarchs have their way, this may well be the last stand of effective activism.

The Australian Govt whomever they may be, must act/ should have already acted, to prevent the rendition through suspect legal process and dubious motives, of Assange to the US or anywhere else without charges and evidence. Or what are we ?.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.
As is runner. As am I.
From everything that I've read on the case against
Julian Assange - especially regarding the ladies
in question. I simply don't buy their story.
It's as simple as that. And I do not for one
moment believe that there are grounds for an extradition
to Sweden or anywhere else. I trust that the
Australian Government will do everything within its
power to ensure that Assange is not extradited.

Dear Thinker 2,

I can't help but agree with everything you've posted.

Dearest Lexi,

Wait and see :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Your reference to the "sisterhood" was interesting.
The following website might clarify things for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

The allegations simply don't ring true.

Of course the allegations don't ring true. Sweden is not a place for allegators.

Yo, Lexi, - I'm with you.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's proba.....

Me too!
Lexi it is unwise to reply to barbs from some.

Lexi,

I was addressing the legalities. Personally I see the women probably disgruntled when they found that JA had had them both within 24hrs. That both had consensual sex, but JA had not exactly complied to their wishes would not be a crime in Aus, but with the broad interpretation in Sweden...

I also don't see JA being much of a gentleman. However, if you locked up all the dicks there would only be women on the outside.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread.
It will be interesting to see what happens to
Assange's case in the next few weeks. Whether the
UK complies with the Swedish warrant, what the
Australian Government will do, and so on.

i think that it is best to wait how the judgement would go but them as any citizen of any country it is the right of the person to a fair trial and justice should be served that is why it is only proper that the court should examine concrete and enough evidences before concluding the trial as this is the only way people can see how fair the judgement went. the court should not take advantage of the power they have and should know the proper way to serve justice

I am largely a big fan of *Assange's* work however, I would hope that the rape charges have already been subjected to legal processes to attempt to screen out any elements of the vexatious and or the frivalous.

If so, then he ought be tried, however, as their is a risk of him been abused by the n.american militants, then they should simply try him for the rape charges in a 3rd party state jurisdiction from which there is no risk of that occuring.

Julian has done a great service to the blind faith believers of the West by exposing the lies and indicriminate killing of civilians by the n.american militants, amongst other things, and for that, he deserves i.m.o. a Human Right's medal of honour.

..

The reality though, as history attests, once individuals take to plotting to kill politicians and those that they are concerned about, law largely goes out the window.

As it is said:

" ... All's fair in Love and War. ... "

..

Look at the near fate of the Asylum Seeker's here who did some burning. Even knowing in advance that it was not lawful for them to do so, the Geelar guvment sought to have them sent to Malaysia where they would most certainly receive corporal punishment for even contemplating the same.

We'll know soon enough what happens next with
the Julian Assange case. And what action, if
any our Government will take.

We can only trust in the British Legal System and that the UK
will make the right decision to keep its
Justice System in tact.

The following website explains the European Arrest
Warrant and its flaws in the Julian Assange case:-

http://justice4assange.com/The-European-Arrest-Warrant.html

I really empathize with Julian and his mother who is trying impossible to protect him. I think Australia needs to protect all citizens no matter are they guilty or not. there is no proof that Julian committed any crime I personally believe that he was set up by the West to stop wiki leak and info sharing.

Dear Zorka,

Thank You for your comments. You obviously think for
yourself. Many people unfortunately look at things
like opinion polls and are influenced by the media.
It's a matter of judgement. For example - reading
today's newspapers one might judge that the
government is "in crisis."

Alternatively - one might look at the many laws the
Government has passed and the policies it has enacted
and conclude that it appears to be executing its stated
agenda with impressive follow through.

As I said - it is a matter of judgement. The same goes
for Julian Assange. Some people don't worry about
legal niceties - especially when there's the
possibility of blood on the floor.

Hi Lexi,

Yes, you're possibly right, this government is doing fine and it's a mystery to many why anybody should think otherwise. Obviously, it will see out its term and be re-elected - from this point of view, Julia will be leading us all for many years to come.

If not, it will all be Abbott's fault.

Love :)

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thanks for rising to the occasion as always.

I'm glad that you recognise the fact that I am
multi-talented. (I can post and piss some people
off at the same time). ;-)

cont'd ...

I forgot to add - as one commentator recently
said on TV -

"Yes, vote for Mr Abbott - once he gets elected he
will present his policies. In the mean time he has
none!

Slogans, attacks, et cetera - are not policies.