Ding! Ding! Ding!

Zombie fact #2 has been triggered: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

You do realise that just because David Allen says something, it doesn’t mean it’s true. Right?

If it was all some conspiracy to get him to America then the Americans would just request extradition from the UK, their is documented history of them extraditing people who were accused of something that wasn’t a crime in either country

Long story short, he’s wanted for arrest for sexual assault and is hiding behind a smoke screen if conspiracy theories.

David Allen Greens post about manages to write off every one of the claims by his supporters with verifiable fact, yet the assange supporters haven’t manage to produce even one in his defense

David Allen Green’s piece is decent but there are inaccuracies, one of which I’ve expanded upon on this thread. Why are you so sure everything he wrote is correct? Have you checked other sources?

The “inaccuracy” you mention is actually an omission, namely why does the author not mention why the Swede’s won’t interview Assange in the embassy? I don’t know and perhaps he doesn’t know either but the fact is that it’s irrelevant because it’s Sweden right not to interview Assange anywhere other than Swedish soil.

Risteard — Conspiracy you say?

So, you think the US wanted Bradley Manning but aren’t interested in Assange? If that’s your position, wow!

By the way, I see you’re sucking up to Green on Twitter. You should really check multiple sources. His article is a legal opinion. It is not unassailable.

@petr, I have checked hiss tuff with other UK lawyers i know and they found no issues, If your going to try discredit what he’s saying Please cite verifible fact or Points of law rather than conjecture or consiracy theory

I’ve never denied that the americans may want assange for it however he was until reecenty in a country that will extradite people for nothing, why all the unnessicary extra cloack & dagger,

Regards to “sucking up to him on twitter” I sent him a tweet to show the conversation was happening, Hardly sucking up, I notice you have your tweets set to friends only, Something to hide?

Apologies for the typo’s

Hmmm interesting argument tactics – ignore the arguments, attack/slate the person. Classic.

*typos.

Paul – Who are you directing that too?
Robin – Fair point

a country the size of Australia has no use for a one-issue party.

The thing about democracy is the voters will decide that, not your good self! :)

I know it will – like it decided about the PDs and the Green Party.

I’m glad you didn’t say “face charges” because, erm, y’know, he’s not actually been charged with anything!

Petr, you need to be arrested and questioned before you can face charges. So the idea that “he’s not actually been charged with anything” isn’t an argument in his defence.

He’s not facing charges – he’s facing arrest. Once arrested he can be charged.

As a general rule, it’s braver to surrender to bail for questioning related to sexual assault than not.

Note: Before anyone even bothers with an Assange ‘zombie fact’, I refer to the David Allen Green: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

That’s an interesting piece, although one of its many weak points is that it fails to address why the Swedes wouldn’t interview him in the embassy. Y’know, because he’s there and willing to talk and the embassy are willing to facilitate it. Rather than saying ‘he doesn’t get to dictate the terms of his questioning’ – a fair point – it’s more revealing to ask whether people have been interviewed in embassies before – they have, many times – and why the reluctance to go this route on this occasion….

As mentioned in the piece, “It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated.” I’m sure were the person not Assange, you would agree with that.

As I explained; they’re two separate questions. Forget Assange for a second. Put yourself in the investigators’ shoes. Why not interview and (possibly) charge him in the embassy?

If I was one of the investigators I would realise that interviewing him in the embassy is a legal impossibility. Swedish government simply can’t give any prior guarantee in respect of an extradition request which has not even been made, nor can it lawfully give any “pre-conditions”.

This is a case of Swedish and European law, not what we think we would do in the same predicament. Ironically, giving such guarantees would leave the case no longer binded to Swedish and international law, putting the Swedes in a sticky situation were a US extradition request to be made.

If I was one of the investigators I would realise that interviewing him in the embassy is a legal impossibility.

That’s not true. Who told you that?

Apologies, you’re correct about the legality of the interviewing. In any case, Sweden will never – and already has not – agree to the embassy questioning, so even if we want investigators to visit the embassy (I personally do as I want this case to move on and justice brought for the innocent party/parties) or for Assange to come to Sweden (which won’t happen because they can’t legally give preconditions ahead of an extradition request that doesn’t exist), the point is moot. Assange will either rot in that embassy or he will surrender to Sweden. What happens after the latter is nowhere near as iron clad or simplistic – in any form whatsoever – as his supporters would have you believe.

He won’t rot there, sure if he died they’d bury or cremate him like normal.

He’s not wanted for questioning, he’s wanted for arrest. And I doubt he could be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy so what would be the point of visiting him there?

He can’t be questioned in that embassy its forigen soil on forigen soil. He has to be taken to a recognised place of detention under swedish law and thats a police station over there. He had to be arrested to question when suspected of arrestable offence.

What is your source on the intent of the Swedish Govt?

As I’ve already pointed out if it was just a case of them Americans wanting Assange they’d have the English extradite him rather than passing him from England to Sweden for the Americans to finally request extradition.

See the case of Richard O’Dwyer who the english were more than happy to hand over despite not being accused of a criminal offense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer

Britain has the special relationship with the US, not Sweden, and has happily handed over citizens/residents.