He went ever further than that. He proposed to go to Sweden if he could be provided with a document promising he would not get deported to US. It was refused.
It's an absurd request. No country could issue such a document. For one thing, it would establish a precedent that the government could arbitrarily decide to overall any future decisions of the judiciary. For another, it would probably violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
He has in fact more protections against extradition in Sweden than he does in the UK, both because the UK has a friendlier bilateral extradition agreement with the US and because the ECHR would require the consent of both the UK and Sweden at this point for him to be extradited.
I can't actually find any examples of extrajudicial extraordinary rendition originating from the UK. The best I can find is that some of the CIA flights refueled in a UK territory.
Doesn't being in the Ecuadorean embassy mean he is technically/politically residing in Ecuador? Or is that an oversimplification when it comes to how embassies work?
It's an oversimplification. The embassy is not Ecuadorian soil. But the embassy itself is inviolable, and while that privilege is not absolute (it has been routinely broken by countries around the world), violating it is a big deal, which is why the UK hasn't simply hauled Assange out.
But no, Ecuador does not have a vote in whether Assange can be extradited. The UK and Sweden do because they are both parties to a treaty that says they do.
That doesn't really mean anything. If Assange was arrested in the embassy, or, like, by a helicopter when he's out on the balcony, he would very much end up subject to the UK judicial process.
The thing protecting Assange right now isn't the judicial process, but rather the inviolability of embassies. The UK police are adhering to the norm that they can't enter the embassy without permission. That norm is routinely violated in other places, but I think everyone involved is comfortable with Assange's self-inflicted house arrest.
Assange cannot be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy without the permission of the Ecuadorian ambassador. The British police can't enter the embassy without permission. The balcony makes no difference.
> That norm is routinely violated in other places
No, it isn't. That would severely damage relationships between the two countries. It's more than a "norm", it's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back millennia.
It's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back 55 years, and if you'd like to put money on my inability to cite you an example of a country not respecting the inviolability of a diplomatic mission on their own soil, I invite you to name a number.
At any rate: we agree: it's the Vienna Accords that keep the UK from simply lassoing Assange and hauling him out of the building. It has nothing to do with whether he's on Ecuadorian soil (he is not).
The Vienna Convention is only the current basis for international law. The concept of diplomatic immunity is at least as hold as history itself. Yes it gets violated occasionally, like nearly every law and custom we've ever created. That's generally treated as an act of war though. You're the only one in this thread that said anything about Ecuadorian soil.
Similar to "diplomatic immunity". It's not like Lethal Weapon where you can openly deal drugs and assassinate people and upon your imminent arrest, waive your diplomatic credentials and walk off.
Whilst subject to use and abuse, most countries have agreements that while certain officials may not be prosecuted (oftentimes, this is only "for offenses related to their official capacity") in the guest country, that they will be, in their home state.
Even general principles around arrest or detainment have "reasonable constraints" for self-defense, public safety or for the prevention of a serious criminal act/felony.
It's not possible within the limits of the Swedish constitution, as has been endlessly explained by now.
Presidential pardons are irrelevant as Sweden is not the USA, but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted.
>And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws.
Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority to override the courts and declare that someone isn't guilty of a crime in the absence of any proper legal process?
No, as has been explained before, that's just apologist rhetoric. Yes, their government is different than the USA but it's ridiculous to think that the leader of a free country couldn't figure out a way to make it work.
They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely.
Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts.
> Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority
Nobody cares. That question is the sole point of blame-diffusion systems. All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability.
Bush didn't have the authority to do much of what he did, but he had the ability and by the time we could point out the difference it was a done deal and now he's not prosecuted so I guess he did have the authority...
The rules work differently at that level. But, even if they didn't, better the leader of a country sits in a country-club prison for doing the right thing than yet another innocent is illegally kidnapped and tortured.
>They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts.
None of these suggestions makes any sense.
(i) A declaratory judgment on the issue of leaks, whatever that means, would have no bearing on Assange's arrest warrant for rape.
(ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing; he is being charged with rape.
(iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct.
(iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted.
(v) I'd be wary of throwing legal niceties aside. It's only those that are preventing the UK government from entering the embassy and arresting him there.
>All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability.
This is false as far as anyone can tell. If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate.
> (ii) Assange is not being charged with whistleblowing
Nicely numbered, but not well thought out.
Assange is avoiding going to Sweden because he rightfully expects a high chance of being rended to USA custody. A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point.
> (iii) "The government" cannot just "investigate" a prosecutor, and there's no evidence of misconduct
Totally untrue. The prosecutor has deviated from standard procedures many times, and slandered Assange as a fugitive from justice despite that he cooperated with all their requests in the beginning.
The organizations I work with have rules for automatic investigations of people who deviate from the norm in suspicious circumstances. If there's any question, there's an investigating. Perhaps it's nothing, but if there was an investigation which found no unjust influence from the political side of the equation it would greatly increase public trust in the outcome of the trial.
It makes no sense to turn yourself in to the law when you have good reason to assume you will NOT get a fair trial, and all indicators point to corruption.
(iv) There would be no point in trying the case remotely as this would make it impossible to punish Assange if he were convicted.
That's not true. There are many options here including serving the sentence in a country less likely to render the prisoner to a third jurisdiction. He's essentially serving a sentence in Ecuador already.
Also, tough. They had custody and let him go. Why do they deserve infinite do-overs? They could try him and ban him from entering Sweden if they were serious, as that would also serve the goal of making Swedish people safer.
>> All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability.
> This is false as far as anyone can tell.
No, you just need to use your imagination. Picture your mother being arrested on a fabricated charge. Think of all the points along the way that you could ruin the government's case through interference if you were the court clerk, a beat cop, etc. Vastly many people have to do just the right things for a arrest/trial/charge to be valid. Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process. Any one of them can act according to their own morality and take an action that while illegal, serves the greater good from their PoV. Yes, it may result in their arrest and charges, but it saves the victim.
This in fact is your moral responsibility. If you join an organization its crimes are on your shoulders unless you take an effort to correct them.
> If you know something that the rest of us don't, then please elaborate
Start by reading the wiki article. Fix that if you think it doesn't match the citations. Then come back and ask about anything you still don't understand.
Consider also reading the article about Civil Disobedience.
> A program the Swedish government embraced. Eliminating one of the main legal avenues for this is precisely the point.
It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this.
> The prosecutor has deviated from standard procedures many times, and slandered Assange as a fugitive from justice despite that he cooperated with all their requests in the beginning.
None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response.
>There are many options here including serving the sentence in a country less likely to render the prisoner to a third jurisdiction. He's essentially serving a sentence in Ecuador already.
How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence?
Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial!
>Any one of them can act according to their own morality and take an action that while illegal, serves the greater good from their PoV. Yes, it may result in their arrest and charges, but it saves the victim.
>Therefore vastly many people have the chance to sabotage an unjust process
The hypocrisy of this part of your comment is quite astonishing. You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely.
> None of this is true. You don't say anything in support of it, so I can't say much in response.
It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive.
Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return, showing that they can if they want to. This means they are choosing not to advance the case while loudly declaring otherwise. That's the process deviation.
> It's not clear what "making whistleblowing specifically legal" would mean, or how it would achieve this.
A declaratory judgement that Assange's alleged actions pertaining to leaks would not be against Swedish law even if committed on their soil. With that there would be no legal basis for extradition.
> Plus, you know for sure that if they convicted Assange in absentia, he'd then start complaining that the verdict was invalid because he couldn't attend the trial!
Just because you would lie doesn't mean Assange would. I think that if they asked him to appear remotely via video, with the world watching, and serve a fair sentence in an Ecudorean prison if found guilty, that he would abide by the results.
> How would they get him out of the embassy to make him serve the sentence?
Assuming he didn't comply willingly, I'm sure if they asked Ecuador nicely, with a well-respected judicial result in hand, that Ecuador would transfer him to one of their prisons. But even if not, house-arrest has proven successful so far.
> You complain (falsely, I think) that the prosecutor hasn't followed "standard procedure", and yet you are urging others to ignore the law completely.
Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice. Humanity 101.
I'm pointing out the deviations of the prosecutor to explain the irregularities that people would be calling to have investigated. It's not a baseless fishing trip.
>It's well documented. He was interviewed in Sweden and left weeks later after notifying the police. That means he isn't a fugitive.
EAW.
"Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it.
>Sweden has also conducted interviews with suspects in foreign countries during the period of time they've been trying to make Assange return,
As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions, and according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that.
> A declaratory judgement that Assange's alleged actions pertaining to leaks would not be against Swedish law even if committed on their soil. With that there would be no legal basis for extradition.
I doubt that this is possible. At least, you appear to be the only person who has suggested it. Has anyone with the relevant legal expertise indicated that this is a possibility?
>I think that if they asked him to appear remotely via video, with the world watching, and serve a fair sentence in an Ecudorean prison if found guilty, that he would abide by the results.
I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW. Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes.
> I'm sure if they asked Ecuador nicely, with a well-respected judicial result in hand, that Ecuador would transfer him to one of their prisons.
How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities?
>Of course I'm urging people to deviate - when to follow the procedure would cause a greater injustice.
You already accept that Sweden can try Assange. Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence?
> "Fugitive" isn't a precisely defined term, but he is subject to an arrest warrant and isn't complying with it.
Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count.
> As has been repeatedly said, the investigation has reached the point where the prosecutor wants to charge Assange, not merely ask him questions
Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning.
> according to Swedish law he must be in custody before they can do that.
Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true.
> I don't see any reason to think so, given that he is already ignoring the EAW.
He's not ignoring them, he's refusing to comply with non-legal orders.
You have no reason to think he wouldn't comply with legal orders, because he has always complied before. This isn't wikipedia, but Assume Good Faith.
> Why should Sweden take his word for it? They're not under any obligation to conduct the investigation in accordance with Assange's wishes.
Right, and he's not under any obligation to do with them to participate in the sham.
> How on Earth can you be "sure" of that? Are you on intimate terms with the Ecuadorian authorities?
I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first.
> You already accept that Sweden can try Assange.
It's their courthouse, they can try Kermit the Frog if they want. It's the legitimacy of the trial that's in question.
> Why would it be more unjust to do so with him present at the trial than it would be in his absence?
Because one requires extraordinary rendition. If it's legal for me to eat an icecream cone, why is it illegal for me to kidnap you, lock you in a box, and transport you to a foreign country, then eat an icecream cone? (Hint, the kidnapping and rendition...)
>Color me a traditionalist, but only valid warrants count.
The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this!
>Nope. They issued the arrest warrant to compel him to return for questioning.
No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him. This was explained repeatedly at the time. See e.g. paragraph 140 of the high court judgment:
In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect.
Or, directly from the Swedish prosecutor (paragraph 142):
It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
>Sweden is willing to question others in foreign jurisdiction so that obviously not true.
He is not wanted merely for questioning.
>I'm surer of that, with more evidence, than you are that they would not comply. You first.
I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities would do under hypothetical circumstances. If you have some inside knowledge, please share it. (I thought wikileaks supporters, of all people, would believe in transparency?)
>Because one requires extraordinary rendition.
What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required.
> What on Earth are you talking about? Assange could go to Sweden today and the trial could be held there. No extraordinary rendition required.
Why on earth would he be that stupid though? They clearly aren't prosecuting the case properly so why would he believe he'd get a fair trial?
The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition.
> No, they issued it because he needs to be in their custody before they can charge him.
They can say it all they want but that doesn't make it true. They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial.
Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely. The reason they don't is that it's not about the case, with its likely short sentence, it's about capturing and controlling him. If they tried him remotely he would serve his sentence in a foreign (Ecuadorean likely) prison and they wouldn't have achieved their goal.
> This was explained repeatedly at the time.
Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden.
> He is not wanted merely for questioning.
Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on.
> I don't claim to know what the Ecuadorian authorities
You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement. You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist so you have the burden of proof.
> The warrant is legally valid. I don't think even Assange denies this!
No, valid means it's not a setup. The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy.
>The only way they'll get him there is if they or the brits abduct him at gunpoint. Extraordinary rendition.
That wouldn't be extraordinary rendition, assuming he was being arrested by the British police. (It would be a violation of various diplomatic protocols, which is why the UK hasn't done it.)
>They want him in custody so that they can jail him after the sham trial.
You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him.
>Sweden can choose to charge him, and to try him, remotely
They can't, actually, as the prosecutor explained in the submission to the high court. (You really should read the judgment -- it's very informative.) But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets?
>Nope. They changed their story multiple times. At one point they claimed he fled Sweden.
>Right, not anymore. When one tactic failed they moved on.
They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up. Whether they always wanted to do this is irrelevant. (Although, that being said, your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true.)
>You claim to know to know that Assange wouldn't comply with a valid judgement.
I may have used the word "know", but of course I admit that this is merely what I suspect. Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia. But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice.
>You're accusing someone of being an unrepentant rapist
I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial.
>The paper it's written on, the stamp on the paper, and the name signed on the bottom, are just trappings you've started to confuse with legitimacy.
It was a acquired through the usual process for acquiring an EAW. If you have some more general problem with EAWs then that is a separate discussion.
> That wouldn't be extraordinary rendition, assuming he was being arrested by the British police. (It would be a violation of various diplomatic protocols, which is why the UK hasn't done it.)
If he's arrested on trumped up charges, then yes, it would be. (I'm sure the CIA printed up some sort of receipt (err, warrant) for the people it had smuggled out of the country. Paperwork doesn't make things right.)
> You're conceding the key point here. I.e., they do want to prosecute him and not just question him.
Right, and they always have. But their lies around that, and framing him for fleeing, etc, have rendered that moot. Any legitimacy the trial may have had is up in smoke. If he can't get fair treatment pre-trial why would we think he'd get a fair trial?
> They can't, actually, as the prosecutor explained in the submission to the high court. (You really should read the judgment -- it's very informative.)
That directly contradicts the text of the law. Trials in absentia are possible - there are merely rules for notification, etc.
Also, they've lied before so the default position is that they're lying this time too.
> But even if they could do this, why should they? Why does Assange deserve special treatment that no-one else gets?
Because it's their fault, not his. Their fuckups and their lies. Anyone in his position deserves proper treatment.
> They want to charge him and prosecute him now, and they have an EAW to back this up.
A warrant they wrote themselves. Not very convincing. Prosecutorial misconduct is not justice and they can't pretend that it is by doubling down.
> But we can make an educated guess based on his continuing attempts to evade justice.
To achieve justice.
> I did not say that anyone was a rapist. I don't prejudge the result of any future trial.
No, but you're sure he'll get convicted and that he wouldn't report for jail. That means: rapist, and unrepentant. You didn't say it out right, and now you're walking it back to "strongly suspect"...
> It was a acquired through the usual process for acquiring an EAW. If you have some more general problem with EAWs then that is a separate discussion.
You're saying the usual process involves lies and slander? I doubt that. And no, I don't have a general problem with EAWs...
> Neither of us knows what Assange would do if he was found guilty in absentia.
If he was convicted in absentia, by a clown court, I imagine he'd thumb his nose at Sweden. I would. But if he was given the chance to participate in a real trial, remotely, that would be vastly different.
> your claims here are unsourced, and I do not believe they are true.
The UN working group on arbitrary detention didn't idly side with him. If the charges appeared to have merit they wouldn't have come out in support. I think they're read both sets of sources...
"""Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. [...] The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation."""
> but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted.
Well, in Assange's case, those would be past offences for which they may or may not be convicted. And I think that would be the same situation as Nixon when Ford pardoned him - he'd already done the deed, but hadn't been convicted yet.
edit: Though, since we're speculating already - does it even make sense for an American president to pardon an Australian citizen?
Ok, you are correct that the US President can in fact pardon people preemptively (though it is very rare). But no such power is available to anyone within the Swedish government or judiciary, so far as I am aware, and to pardon Assange preemptively would in any case violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
