Swedish judge explains big obstacles to US Assange extradition A senior judge from Sweden’s supreme court, Justice Stefan Lindskog, has told an Australian audience that Julian Assange’s argument he cannot stand trial in Sweden without being extradited to the USA is not as black and white as the wikileaker would have us believe. Lindskog yesterday told an audience at the University of …
The only safe passage Assange will have is his own rear end, as long as he stays inside that embassy.
Whatever else he has done, he has now broken enough laws that him NOT landing in jail would be a total travesty of justice. By now, Assange really *deserves* a prolonged stay with a cell mate named Bubba.
I don't follow "Bubba"'s involvement in this. He's not mentioned in any legislation or penal system I know of, so I'm unclear how prosecuting him could ever ensure he shares a cell with Assange.
You're not saying he *deserves* institutionalised rape, I hope? That would be illegal, and you claim to be very concerned about laws and justice.
No, no, you get it all wrong. I am really worried about Assange feeling alone in jail, so I just recommend some company, and Bubba is known to be *very* friendly. He also shares with Assange that being a bit hazy on the "no means no" thing, so it's a good fit, if you pardon the pun.
Besides, according to Assange it can't be rape, as long as Assange or Bubba wait until the other one is asleep.
"By now, Assange really *deserves* a prolonged stay with a cell mate named Bubba."
No, that should be a punishment reserved for Child mollesters and rapists...
I am of the opinion that Jail time only works for violent offenders and that is only to keep them off the streets, other kinds of offences can be best dealt with using other means of punishment...
"No, that should be a punishment reserved for Child mollesters and rapists..."
Did your mother never teach that two wrongs don't make a right?
Rape is a horrible crime. Rape as a implicit punishment included with jail time is inhuman, has no place in any civilised society and makes everyone involved accomplices. Barely better than the criminal themselves. Is that the person you want to be?
Rape is a horrible crime. Rape as a implicit punishment included with jail time is inhuman, has no place in any civilised society and makes everyone involved accomplices. Barely better than the criminal themselves. Is that the person you want to be?
I must admit your fascination with the topic is interesting, but that's merely an observation (ad hominem is not really my style), but let's just bend that one over and examine it in depth. Ahem.
Let's begin with how we got here. Mr Assange committed an act which any decent man would not do - unprotected sex without intercourse. Given that that appears to be his preference, the likelihood of Assange giving more than some unwanted genetic material and a possible risk of pregnancy is more than trivial - in other words, you could argue it wasn't just possible rape (the court has to decide if it is), it could also be more like causing bodily harm with intent. So that's step one.
An observation must be made here: it is credible to believe that the whole Sweden thing would have blown over if he had been man enough to have himself tested. There is, of course, the possibility he KNOWS the result would not be good, in which case it makes sense to avoid the test as it would solidify the charge even before he had that interview - I hope you kept that in mind. But he didn't offer test results, and so the wheels started grinding. If this was some sort of US setup there would not BE any doubt, and he would not have been able to quickly run away before they called him back for the second interview.
What I find MUCH worse is that this criminal (on account of committing a crime in the UK) has wasted a massive amount of court resources and time. He took money from other people who now lost it as a consequence of him skipping bail (so you could in theory also call him a thief, but let's stay with the already proven label), and he went through 3 layers of progression in the UK legal system to keep this myth alive that he would be extradited to the US if he got to Sweden, which is total and utter BS (and he knows that too), with his supporters asking for official statements before he would "comply". Well, Assange and crew have nada to dictate, especially since Assange is well over the red line by now.
Who will pay for that time? Who will restore the court time and resources wasted on this buffoonery? How many people seeking the slim bit of justice doled out in the UK missed it because the court's time was wasted on this criminal?
Personally, I don't think jail time is enough. He seems very comfortable holing up in the rather small Ecuadorian embassy so it'll merely be like a change of scenery to him. From the perspective of attempting to correct behaviour this is probably not going to work - he's a martyr in his own mind.
Rape is a terrible thing. Especially if you have been convicted of it. (Assange hasn't.)
But if you know somebody important in the US Air Force, a rape conviction is no more than rain on the tail of a duck.
<"Responding to growing political uproar over an Air Force lieutenant general’s decision to throw out a fighter pilot’s jury conviction for aggravated sexual assault, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered an investigation into the case and a review of the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that empower commanders to overrule the verdicts of court-martial juries."> http://www.stripes.com/news/hagel-orders-review-of-ucmj-after-wilkerson-sex-assault-case-1.211333
Lt. Col. James Wilkerson got a 'get out of jail free' card from Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin. Or you could call it a 'get into poontang free' card.
There is ZERO need for anything special. The laws are very simple and clear, which is probably why Assange is hauling in all this bullcrap about death sentences. The man somewhat overestimates his importance.
To wit: he had unprotected sex without permission, after a clearly expressed desire of the, umm, "recipient" to wear condoms. He used the fact that she was still asleep to start, which can be classed as either coercion or rape, but that's for a court to decide. You know a court? A normal, established process which looks at all factors and then decide if you have broken the law? The second story was about Assange trying to enter without the condom, action refused by the girl. Assange subsequently re-entered, but apparently with the condom damaged.
So, what we see from the statements is Assange trying his level best to avoid condoms, the girls insisting, and Assange trying to get his own way regardless. Now, if Assange had been a man and had himself actually tested when asked (just to give the girls peace of mind that he had not given them anything to remember him by), it is likely that the matter would have still gone away. But he didn't. And thus is escalated, and the Swedish were left with no option that to follow THE LAW. There is no BS here about gaming the system to catch Assange, because that would have been engineered so that he would get caught the moment he walked out of the building, leaving less margin for error. No, this is about Assange not being able to keep his end in his trousers and getting his own way against the specific and clearly stated wishes of the girls. "They had a fight about it" is to me a reasonably good indication that Assange knew bloody well what that he was doing was not wanted, and in some countries this is quite simply classed as rape. You know, "no means no"?
After that, he hauled ass to the UK and went into hiding. By then breaking bail conditions he broke UK law as well, and as this guy is surrounded by lawyers I cannot believe he didn't know that (not that that would be an excuse, but just to cut off that route). But maybe his ego made him think he stands above the law. Which is exactly why this cannot end well for Assange. He's in deep shit in the UK for a crime, and he's wanted in Sweden to answer charges that may lead to him being charged with a crime.
And that's assuming he hasn't got HIV, because if any of those two girls now develops HIV the story will get a hell of a lot uglier, because the Swedish affair could then turn into charges of physical harm (depends on how Swedish law handles deliberate HIV infection - I think it's classed as premeditated murder in some countries but I never had cause to look it up).
That's why Assange needs no special treatment, no special laws and no special entrapment exercises.
He managed to do all of that on his own.
@AC.
Some of what you say is accepted by both parties and therefore can be treated as fact. Some of the rest is not and therefore cannot be stated as fact. In both cases, it's basically Assange v the woman (I assume they would prefer to be known as women rather than girls). So, the 'facts' are not as easy to state as you make out. In some important regards, Assange claims different to the woman. You can't simply take the womans account as fact and ignores Assanges claims.
This entire case is largely based on vanity. Yes, we all know Assange is very vain. However, most of the politicians and other parties involved are also pretty vain as well. The case is so old now, that if the only purpose was to establish if some nasty had been transfered (HIV etc.), it would have been found by now. So, this case is largely about other things now; maybe not at the beginning, but certainly now. Effectively, it's become a vanity project by all concerned and that's not a very good position to start justice from, regardless of where your views lie.
> So, this case is largely about other things now; maybe not at the beginning, but certainly now. Effectively, it's become a vanity project by all concerned and that's not a very good position to start justice from, regardless of where your views lie.
You are correct that it's a case about other things now. One of those other things is about setting an example: namely that the law can't be evaded simply by running away and hoping that the case will go away. For this reason alone that arrest warrant will never go away.
I can only assume Assange's strategy is to sit tight until Bradley Manning's trial is over and then re-assess the situation. Nothing else makes much sense.
"n both cases, it's basically Assange v the woman (I assume they would prefer to be known as women rather than girls). So, the 'facts' are not as easy to state as you make out. In some important regards, Assange claims different to the woman. You can't simply take the womans account as fact and ignores Assanges claims."
Which is precisely why he was supposed to have answered questions of the Swedish prosecutor, to decide if there were any grounds for court case. If there was a court case, the court would then decide, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and his defence counsel. That's what courts are for.
The answer was not to leave the country before the prosecutor had even had a chance to question him - that just made him look guilty and prompted the Swedes to issue an EAW to have him returned for questioning.
This man is now a criminal, inasmuch that he has broken UK law and skipped bail; it was forecast, he was marked as at risk of absconding again, that is he absconded from Sweden after his lawyer had been told that the police there wanted to interview him prior to pressing charges, as is the legal requirement and process in that country. He has attempted and is attempting to abscond again, and I am forced to conclude from his 17 convictions (one case) that this criminal will do anything that he can to avoid facing the processes of criminal law. The last words of the convicting Australian judge were a warning; he would certainly face a spell in gaol in the event of a repeat offence, and indeed this will apply to any further offence of any sort. Such is the course of justice in dealing with criminals.
How can anyone offer such unconditional support, given his history manifestly criminal acts, even accessing the police computers involved in the Australian investigative process involved in uncovering his criminal acts in or around 1997, which included breaking into a Pentagon air force defence computer, breaking into university and telecoms computers in Australia, and a number of other items?
There is no doubt of this man's criminal record, and he merely shines a searchlight on himself by breaking the laws of this country (he skipped bail) and, allegedly, that in Sweden whence he absconded; it is noteworthy that the Swedish bar association were, when I last investigated, to have a word with his lawyer, with whom the police were in contact over this matter; they informed him of their intentions, he disappeared thereafter; the lawyer denied, in open court in the UK having been contacted by the Swedish police, something which he was forced to retract, in open court; I can only conclude that mendacity runs through the defence side, from the defendant through to the Swedish counsel. It would seem that birds of a feather flock together.
Criminals always demonstrate an offending profile, beginning with small offences and working their way up, both as they mature and also as they become more adept, experienced, and unafraid of the consequences of their behavioural acts.
I am still very interested in the relationship he had with a 16 year old girl, whom he successfully inseminated, and the excuses that he was only a few years older do not pass muster. I was very interested to see another glint of light from inside of the defensive armour, namely that his son reports that his mother asserts that his (the son's) behaviour is as problematic as the father. Their choice of words differs, but I cannot recall the precise phraseology.
When this man grows a pair of balls it will end. He will not be deported from Sweden to the US and probably not even from the UK; in any event, under the terms of the EAW the Swedes cannot deport him from their country without prior permission from the UK. Under that logic it is not so much Sweden that is causing him to run, but the UK, and that is demonstrated by his long stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the representative body of a country with an execrable record of human rights and an equally execrable record where freedom of expression and the concept of a free press has been all but destroyed.
Oh the contortions of the PC brigade when they fall in love with someone. Oh the excuses that they will swallow from their cherished convicted criminal, and the posturing and excuses they will make.
Utterly childish, mendacious and silly.
@Chad H.
That's not what people are saying. The law does not predetermine the outcome of a court case, but simply says he cannot be prosecuted for x or y. Therefore, no court case can exist as the law says he can't be prosecuted.
'Judicial independence' doesn't come into it as the law says no law has been broken, hence it doesn't even make it to court!!
Unless i got a written guarantee of no extradition, then i would not go to Sweden.
The argument that his crimes may not be against swedish law so therefore he is protected fall down when you consider the Pirate Bay seizure of servers which was carried out as a proxy of the US and faced alot of legal questions in sweden.
The US reach is very far and if you are on the wrong side of them, i would expect it pays to be very cautious.
You make a good point.
While I currently have no issue with US foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly easier to see why a lot of people (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) distrust the US Government.
While the US Govenment is perfectly happy to actively disclose the crimes of other States (eg. Iran, North Korea), when its crimes are disclosed by others (eg. Wikileaks) it doesn't like it and goes after the messenger. That behaviour is just wrong. They should either stop the criminal activity or just accept that it's been made public and let the public decide what should be done (if anything) about it.
"While I currently have no issue with US foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly easier to see why a lot of people (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) distrust the US Government."
I've been of that opinion since the early 1980s. It was clear after looking at what was happening that the USA was as bad as all the others, just wrapping itself in a flag and proclaiming democracy and the free world.
As Mark Twain said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. He also pointed out that congress is to progress as "pro" is to "con"
No, Samuel Johnson said it in 1775.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
He was not condemning patriotism but politicians who wrap themselves in the flag at the drop of a hat.
Luckily such people are rare in the USA.
"While I currently have no issue with US foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly easier to see why a lot of people (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) distrust the US Government."
Oh yes indeed. I can see your point, the human rights and legal/justice records of Chinese and Arab governments are impeccable. The Arabs are so well known for their benign treatment of women who have been raped, and never execute them for this heinous crime! As to the Chinese, it is well known that their administration of justice in the cause of human rights, especially where the Tibetans are concerned, is impeccable, a byword in modern human rights and legal standards, one to which the Americans should readily aspire.
Thank your for your most erudite contribution on this important point on human rights and the equal administration of human rights, which is so moot and welcome at this critical stage in the proceedings.
I will carry your words of wisdom and fairness with me to the grave, as will I am sure the Ecuadorian government and, indeed, even Julian Assange, whose pronouncements on the status of Afghan informants in respect of attacks by those so very humane administrators of justice and human rights, the Taliban, is so very close to the heart of every human rights organisation.
@Scorchio.
He's simply talking about the perception that other people have of the US. He's not saying he agrees, or even that it's justified. He's just saying they don't trust or like the US. The US is rapidly getting a name as the bully boy of the world. You do what they say, when they say or else............
Reality matters less than perception. Unless the US does something about this perception, it will have made itself far more of a target and cause itself a lot more grief in the long run. Extraordinary rendition is another good example, although a lot of other countries were guilty of complicity or, at least, turning a blind eye.
It's interesting that you seek to categorise people by racial or other 'group' attribute rather than by country. After all, all Arabs are the same, aren't they? Well, no actually. Some Arab countries are far better than others. Just the same as not all western countries are the same.
Arguably, the US has committed crimes of the same magnitude as the Chinese or 'Arabs', albeit maybe not in the same quantity. However, is quantity the issue here, or simply committing even one example of the crime? After all, the US has never locked people up without trial for years in contravention of its own constitution using the legal backdoor of Guantanamo isn't technically covered by the constitution. It has, historically, had a rather interesting definition of torture (or should I say 'encouragement') and has committed and defended the use of kidnapping.
So, yes, the countries you mention are not perfect, but let's not forget the US is far from perfect either.
"He's simply talking about the perception that other people have of the US. He's not saying he agrees, or even that it's justified. He's just saying they don't trust or like the US. The US is rapidly getting a name as the bully boy of the world. You do what they say, when they say or else..........."
What matters is the quote, "it is becoming increasingly easier":
"While I currently have no issue with US foreign policy, it is becoming increasingly easier to see why a lot of people (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) distrust the US Government."
You will have noticed my reference to Tibet, which country the Chinese invaded in 1951 (that is to say, for some 62 years of 'increasing ease', to say nothing of the Uigur, the cultural revolution and so much more) and have been, more recently, raping and subjugating in a manner more appropriate to the middle east. A passing reference to the human rights of protesters in the PRC, including the 1989 Tienenman square massacre (Tienenman translates to Gate of Heavenly Peace no less!), Ai Weiwei (but let's not fixate on him alone, and bear in mind that he is the tip of a grisly iceberg) and such is necessary here.
Otherwise it would seem to me from your comments that you are trying to read the mental acts and state of another poster, something that is very unwise, as reading mental acts and states is beyond the most proficient of psychiatric/psychology practitioners, beyond mere inference from analogy, which is very dangerous outside of 8 weeks of psychiatric assessment.
As far as the US is concerned, the latest president is making up for past offences, but I see no evidence of this on the part of Russian, Chinese and Arab governments. The Russian involvements across the Caucasus make Iraq - itself a good example of illegal behaviour - seem pedestrian. The shelling and destruction of Grozny is one example, and the political murder rate of Russian journalists (and other prominent figures, at home and abroad) such as Anna Politkovskya should snap people out of their complacency, but no, they pick on the more easily accessible, less frequent data, rather than the unending nightmare of the former USS, which is ruled by the grandson of Stalin's cook, who appears to be attempting a rehabilitation of this foul murderer and torturer of innocent people. Treatment of internal ethnic minorities such as the Kurds and people from Balochistan by, e.g., Iran and Turkey too (Kurdistan is I believe situated across 4 to 5 other existing states/legal entities), is another example, and I could type line after line (how about Bahrain?) highlighting the disparity between what you and others would have me believe - that the US is the sole or leading practitioner of such bad, egregious, criminal and vile behaviour (it is far from that if you had bothered to read around, merely looking at Grozny, or perhaps the assassination of General Dudyev who was ironically the Soviet's best chance of genuine peace) - and I am certain that you would turn a 'blind eye' to the truth. Hence my mixed use of irony and sarcasm which, judging from your response, has not dented your carapace. That is to say, not fully; apperception appears to be lacking, if inference by analogy from your typographical responding is a fair judge.
It's a subject that I studied, both as a soldier and as an undergraduate. I was taught to see past the throwaway lines such as those I quoted, and I still do see past them. Whatever you may wish to say about the US, put it to one side and open your eyes FGS. Look at the practise of state sponsored terrorism (Gaddafi), assassination, war and wars by proxy effected by many states other than the USA. Don't stick with the easy, populist, processed cheese variety of example. Do some hard thinking, innovative even. You'll arrive at a point closer to the truth
HTH.
"It's interesting that you seek to categorise people by racial or other 'group' attribute rather than by country. After all, all Arabs are the same, aren't they? Well, no actually. Some Arab countries are far better than others. Just the same as not all western countries are the same."
I forgot to address this point. I referred word by word to the original words of the OP, which were:
"[...] (Arabs, Chinese, et. al.) [...]"
I find it interesting that you chose to focus on my iteration of his words and that I addressed them directly, took them at face value, and I am allowing myself the luxury of a deliberation here, that is to say that this part of your response was sophistry, or that you failed to read the OPs words fully.
Furthermore, I don't think that some Arab countries are better than others, nor the implicit, underlying rationale. I think that Arab governments may vary as a function of reform, and I think that an intrinsic part of that reform is absent - that is to say, Islam has not undergone a reform comparable to that undergone by the Catholic church - and I do not typify a people by their government. This would be short sighted, since most Arab governments are the descendants of a causal chain going back to way before the days when Islam burst out of the desert, overturned, displaced and destroyed Christian countries (in the country where the original Aramaic prayers and hymns are still sung and can be recognised by western Christians [of which, being an atheist, I am not one] the majority religion is Islam), then reaching out to as far as Italy, Greece, Spain, with white slavers going as far as the Scandinavian countries), inspiring a reflexive action now known as the Crusades and misunderstood, wrongly portrayed as a form of colonialism and barbarism.
Arab countries? Please, do lay off the over simplifications. They are for people who employ specious logic, like Harriet Harman, who said that it hasn't been demonstrated that men are necessary in families, and that they ought not to be let into classrooms for fear that they might abuse children. Looking in only one direction for a source of growth, nurture and education on the one hand, and for a source of abuse on the other. False dichotomies and specious logic lead us to where we (particularly St. Jules) are now.
But the politicians can't guarantee anything, because an extradition would be decided by the courts of law, not the elected.
The courts of law can't guarantee anything because they can't guess what (the prosecutors of) another nation might want to charge Assange with.
This whole "guarantee or Assange won't travel" argument is a smokescreen, it's useless, unless you expect the Swedish cabinet to break the Swedish constitution _and_ risk losing the next election from the potential scandal of being found out...
If I was afraid of being extradited to the US, I sure as h*ll wouldn't go to the UK in the first place...
Wasn't he in Sweden because he wanted to become a RESIDENT of that country? So back then it was safe there and suddenly it is not? The US did not need him acused of a crime in Sweden to ask for extradiction - a crime in the US is enough for that. Wether Sweden grants it is then up to swedisch laws. Laws that where fine for Assange until he was acused of breaking them.
My take on it is that he either
a) Commited the crime and don't want to do the time
b) Actually has a nice STD and want's to skip the testing a court might / will order
c) Did nothing, saw it as an opportunity to make himself "important" and "in the media" and now has no way out
c) is the "nicest" option for the US. Imagin:
Assange gets to a Swedish court. Short quesitioning where he "pleads the fifth" (or the Swedish equivalent), After 10min it's all over. Upon leaving the court he is delivered a note making him "persona non grata", escorted to the next SAS plane to Australia. 18+ hours later the plane lands in Sidney and Assange is thrown out by two sturdy swedish stewards (if he is lucky they wait for the boarding steps) and told "never to come back to Sweden or we show you the bogs". THAT would make him a paranoid laughing stock all over the world.
This article flips Steffan Lindskog's reasoning on its head -
It's not that Julian Assange is paranoid for assuming he'll be extradited to the US from Sweden
It's that the Swedish government has the power at any time to assure all including Assange that his return to Sweden to investigate a sex allegation will not result in extradition on current jurisdiction-less Wikileaks
(assertions built on politics, military, freedom of speech, freedom of press, human rights violations)
As long as the too-clever-by-far prosecutors and the government leave their intents ambiguous, they give Assange reasonable doubt to assume he's being set up.
Considering the newspapers - including European - that actually vetted and published the Wikileaks stories, it's hard to imagine any of these charges passing EU courts, but Sweden could try to pull a quicky to satisfy American interests - so why not just say they won't?
"It's that the Swedish government has the power at any time to assure all including Assange that his return to Sweden to investigate a sex allegation will not result in extradition on current jurisdiction-less Wikileaks"
No, it doesn't have that power. The government may not interfere with legal proceedings. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre for the short version.
"No, it doesn't have that power. The government may not interfere with legal proceedings. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre for the short version."
As a government implements laws, it effectively can issue a guarantee by writing a law to that effect. Yes, it can't interfere with the interpretation of that law by the judges, but it can write whatever it likes provided it gets through the appropriate steps to get onto the statute books. So, a government can create a law saying Assange cannot be prosecuted for a given act etc.etc. All judges can then do is determine if the extradition request is in relation to that act and if so do as the law says. Of course, someone could later create another law reversing the first, or repeal the first, but normally laws are not written to impact the past.
Of course, there is precedent now, within the UK at least, to write some pretty dodgy laws. The new one on tax avoidance is a good example. If something is setup for the sole purpose of avoiding tax, it's illegal even though it's legal in every other way!! That's open to a huge amount of interpretation and person opinion. Very dangerous.
Mad Mike,
It's clear you have little understanding of how law works. Not that I claim to be any expert in Swedish constitutional law, but if their constitution guarantees judicial independence specifically, or the separation of powers then no such law could be made. Parliaments can pass laws, but only in accordance with the constitution.
As for your unrelated point about UK tax law, 'mens rea' is a pretty standard concept in criminal law. You have to prove that the defendant intended to commit a crime for certain offences. That's little different to the case of tax law. If you create a special purpose vehicle to do some sort of business that's fine, but if it's only to evade tax then you're committing a crime. The crime is the intention to avoid paying your taxes. I've not looked at the specifics of the law you mention, but as described it's perfectly reasonable.
@I ain't Spartacus.
Another person who insults as a rebuttal to a point made by another.
A parliament can pass any law it wants. It could be done in all sorts of ways. For instance, it used to be that retrospective laws weren't made. Not because there was a law against it per se, but because it was viewed as unreasonable to make something a crime AFTER the person had committed it. This has been well and truly broken in the UK now, with several retrospective laws, including the loss of double jeopardy in some cases. I can tell you're not a lawyer or otherwise in the judicial process as your mind doesn't seen able to create interesting routes round the problem, a feature of lawyers. For instance, Sweden could simply repeal the law that makes his act an offense and make it retrospective!!
Also, the constitution can be changed as well, so this is no barrier. Depending on the constitution, it might require some sort of referendum, a vote in parliament or whatever. However, it could be changed. You seem to misunderstand the concept of judicial independence. That doesn't mean the government can't enact laws that impact the judiciary, just that the judiciary are there to interpret the laws as they see fit and the government can't tell them how to interpret them. This has oft been an issue in the past when the judiciary hasn't interpreted the law as politicians wanted!!
As to the tax law I quoted. It is wide open to interpretation. In order to avoid it, the person has to show a purpose to his legal construct. Well, what about he just wanted to?? Whats the matter with that? That law has been created for one specific reason only. Accountants are far smarter at getting round tax laws than the people writing said laws. The answer is not to write a general purpose law allowing wide interpretation, but either to write the laws smarter, or actually take the intelligent approach. Simplify the law. It is the complexity of laws that opens all the doors through which accountants pass. Simple laws are far less likely to have these. It is the politicians desire to bias things to their particular liking and making exception this and exception that, that results in overly complex laws, full of holes.
Your interpretation of the tax law is interesting as you almost certainly fall foul of it, as would pretty much everyone in the UK. You also misunderstand the difference between tax avoidance and evasion, which is fundamental. Evasion is and has always been, illegal. Avoidance never has been, but this law makes it so under some circumstances. Unless you're a saint, everyone in the UK tries to avoid tax, but not everyone tries to evade it!! You don't pay what you can legally avoid paying in other words.
You also have to look at politicians logic in all this. An ISA account is an investment account with one specific purpose over and above other investment accounts.......to avoid tax!! Does this make it illegal? They only exist to avoid tax. You could get exactly the same terms with a non-ISA account, but pay tax on the interest/gain as usual. Instead, you choose an ISA as you can avoid the tax!! So, according to your interpretation, an ISA falls foul of this law. Of course, ISAs are approved of by HMRC and politicians, so they'll look over this!! Pensions are another good example. You could save for retirement by putting money into an account and getting interest etc., but you actually pay into a pension? Why? Because a pension avoids tax on the money!! Again, the only purpose of a pension over an ordinary investment is to avoid tax!! Another avoidance you probably take advantage of!!
@Don Jefe
My original posting was in response to someone insisting it was 'impossible' to guarantee her wouldn't be prosecuted. I was simply showing it wasn't impossible. Not that it's desirable or a sensible use of time and resources. Simply that people should stop stating facts or claiming things are impossible etc. unless it's actually true.
Sweden COULD do something and therefore it is not impossible. Desirable; now that's another thing altogether.
@Mad Mike
The original statement was that the Swedish government could issue a guarantee at any time, to which I objected that they can not (implicitly -now-) due to the constitution.
I didn't use the term impossible.
Now please listen to "I ain't Spartacus", because his first paragraph is right.
Also, a retroactive law as you later suggest would at least in Sweden be improbable to the point of certainty due to a tradition of actively not making such laws, and the entire legal professional community would create an outcry which the law makers couldn't ignore if they tried.
@Northern Code.
"Also, a retroactive law as you later suggest would at least in Sweden be improbable to the point of certainty due to a tradition of actively not making such laws, and the entire legal professional community would create an outcry which the law makers couldn't ignore if they tried."
You putting a lot of faith in the professional community and putting your money on their actions. This was also the case in the UK, but we have several retrospective laws now. Did the UK professional community prevent it with their 'outcry'? No they did not.
'Improbable to the point of certainty' is probably what people in the UK would have said a couple of decades ago and they were proven utterly wrong. The UK had exactly the same tradition as well. So, you're placing your faith in something that has already been shown to have failed!!
If you say the constitution would prohibit such a 'guarantee', presumably this is because it would force an outcome on a court case. However, I have already shown and explained how creating a new law (what politicians do) gets round this, as there never would be a court case!! Therefore, no predetermination!! So, by creating a new law, they can create such a guarantee and not be in violation of the constitution.
Us lawyers are crafty like that ;-)
We claim that Assange is going to be extradited because <insert random government or judicial element> refuses to <insert act or activity impossible for the stated entity to perform because of legal or constitutional reasons>. Because this <insert act or activity impossible for the stated entity to perform because of legal or constitutional reasons> we claim extradition is certain.
Yawn. Bring me some arguments that make sense. The refusal of government and judiciary to fulfil the impossible and/or illegal demands are exactly proof that they won't bypass those frameworks for the US either.
I am by now supremely indifferent o what happens to him, other than that the law should prevail. If that means a couple of months or years in a cell or reprocessing into Soilent Green in the US, I don't care either way. Plenty of other criminals to worry about that have a much larger impact, such as certain bankers.
I'm not saying interfere with legal proceedings.
Your own quote states: "No public authority, including the Riksdag and the decision-making bodies of local authorities, may determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case..."
Note the term "local authorities". So if the national administrative authority re: extraditions notes that Assange isn't going to be extradited over an unrelated charge, it's not interfering with a legal proceeding - it's solving an unrelated hurdle.
They can do it in a non-"Bill of Attainder" kind of way - "for Mr. Assange and all others under Swedish legal jurisdiction, investigation of a possible crime is not an open fishing expedition into one's complete background and international reputation. It is assumed that since the US has not indicted Mr. Assange nor filed a request for extradition in the years of Mr. Assange's presence in Sweden, UK and other EU states, that a request containing no new unassailable previously unavailable information after Mr. Assange's voluntary return to Sweden would not be grounds for Swedish action. This preserves our focus on completely investigating and ensuring justice for those accused and those possibly victimized in an incident reported to the police."
As the US has numerous verified illegal "extraordinary renditions" over the last decade, Assange's concerns are real and justified.
In 2008, the FBI illegally leaked secret recordings to the NY Times of Elliot Spitzer with a prostitute, thereby derailing one of the Bush Administration's harshest and most powerful critics. Unsurprisingly, no one at the FBI was punished, and investigations of Wall Street decreased. Like with Assange, many were unsympathetic towards Spitzer - never charged with a crime but career ruined anyway. Do we want that American sense of justice extended to the EU?
"Ministerstyre ("ministerial rule") in Swedish describes a deviation from the rule that individual government ministers in Sweden[note 1] do not have the right to influence or decide the handling of individual cases at government agencies."
You must not compare "individual government ministers" with a duly elected Parliamentary body empowered to make and change the laws of the land. Ministers of governments that can fall overnight should not be conflated with a sworn-in Parliament that rules a country until the next election.
"It's not that Julian Assange is paranoid for assuming he'll be extradited to the US from Sweden
It's that the Swedish government has the power at any time to assure all including Assange that his return to Sweden to investigate a sex allegation will not result in extradition on current jurisdiction-less Wikileaks"
Nonsense; no government on the face of this earth has such a power, if only because it is in principle possible that any individual - including Assange - could in principle have committed any serious crime meriting extradition. It would require the sort of reasoning learned by one Harman, H, in the upper 6th to claim otherwise.
The Swedish government can still refuse extradition to the US for murder. It's an independent state with leeway in most treaties.
For extraditing to EU countries, there might be less wiggle room.
But how about read what the Swedish justice said - he probably knows much better than you or I:
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/julian_assange_swedish_judge_view_UKXfH1WonxwgZeaG0XnizI
I should make it clear that the US regularly says it will not abide by this or that agreement when it feels inclined. We had a guy in Pakistan wanted for murder - whisked him out of there. The US soldier who went postal on a village? Taken to the US. Contractors spraying cars with bullets? Helicopters firing on civilians? The whole reason for US leaving Iraq is they wouldn't give the US absolute immunity.
The USA has shown over the years, a complete contempt for other countries judicial systems, especially when it involves their own nationals. Th examples you give of people being spirited out of countries are good. They insist on every other country abiding by their judicial system, even when the crime wasn't committed within their own borders (USA believes its judicial system extends to the world), but completely ignored others.
Why shouldn't the soldier who went postal on a village face trial in Afghanistan? The crime was committed there, the victims were Afghan nationals etc.etc. Oh no, the Afghan judicial system is rubbish isn't it. Helicopter pilots having 'fun' firing on civilians in total knowledge they weren't combatants. Again, spirit them away. After all, Iraqs legal system is rubbish.
And Americans wonder why they are treated with such suspicion and contempt by many people around the world and why a fair chunk of people want to see them dead............it's a mystery, really a mystery.
"but “it can be debated” leaking American documents is not a crime under Swedish Law..."
I'd need a hell of a lot more assurance than that before returning to my home country to face trial. The fact is he's now in the shit with Sweden AND the UK (for breaching bail conditions), and not only has a European arrest warrant but could well face serious charges if Sweden 'debate' but decide to hand him over to the US anyway - or do it on the quiet. And it's not just about Cablegate, Wikileaks released copious amounts of US-damning material before that. No woner he's couped up inside the embassy.
Looks like his only way out now is to curl up inside a large suitcase and have someone stick a 'diplomatic bag' sticker on it, and ship him out somewhere.
