Where do you have Assange’s “admission” from? He denies that the sex he had with both women was anything but consensual. Of course, so he would, but the prosecutor too says that it wasn't rape as anyone outside Sweden would use the word. 

The behaviour of the Swedish prosecution has been extremely odd, to put it mildly. Not surprising that Assange didn't consent to go to Sweden: the extradition process restricts Sweden. They can't use any creativity with the charge afterwards. 

Sweden could want Assange just to extradite him to the US. You are aware that Sweden can’t do that unless Britain agrees, aren’t you?

The EAW is certainly deeply flawed. The idea was that without border controls it would be too easy to escape into a country where the offence one is wanted for is not punishable. I find it extremely unlikely that someone leaves their country just to avoid a fine. That leaves serious crimes, and these are punishable (and extraditable) everywhere anyway. The EAW should be scrapped.

There is more joy for all of us from 1st January next year, by the way: the European Search warrant.

I note with some amusement that Assange petitioned the court not to release his whereabouts once he was released on bail.  Funny how the accused rapist leaker now demands privacy of his own information.   

Owly,

First, the Assange case, and why “odd” is mildly put: Both women consented to sex with Assange. Both told various people that they were happy with it for days afterwards. Fact. There are witnesses and tweets to prove that. Then the two women met, and found out about each other. And only then they raised the rape or whatever charge.

The prosecution immediately gave this to the press: very unusual behaviour. They issued an arrest warrant. Then they withdrew it, saying the allegations were without substance. Assange and his Swedish lawyer contacted the prosecution several times in order to hear what he was accused of, and to give his version of the events. The prosecutor declined, and after a few weeks Assange was told he was allowed to leave Sweden. And now there is a EAW, because he did leave Sweden.

Understandable that his trust in the Swedish judiciary is low, probably non-existent. For the British decision on extradition it is important to note that Assange has never been told what he is accused of in a language he understands, as the ECHR requires. And there is no charge. If he had consented to go to Sweden last week, they would be free to accuse him of anything, or to repeat the behaviour they have shown since August. With a formal extradition process Sweden is forced to charge him and to say what they accuse him of, and to stick to it. They can’t invent new allegations, and they can’t extradite him to the US without Britain’s consent.

On the EU: I am very much in favour of having a democratic EU, and very much in opposition to what it is now. That’s why I want to strengthen the EP, referenda, and all that. The processes of decisions must be stood on their feet, and that’s people, not governments. That’s why I too am in favour of the referendum you want: by all means find out if you (Britain) want to stay or not. My opinion is that Britain will lose more than Europe if you leave, though, but it’s your decision.

There are several political fields where European integration is urgently necessary, labour laws, taxation, and social benefits for instance. And there nothing is done.

On the other hand, surveillance and repression always have priority. It is sheer idiocy (more likely intention) to have the EAW. We don’t have common criminal laws, and they won’t be possible for a long time. Cultural differences and traditions are too different, and this must be respected.

Yes, I oppose the European warrants too.

I’ve read it. It shows that this case is becoming more bizarre every day.

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

If he had taken a test, it wouldn’t have been rape. Bizarre. And you go on asking why Assange doesn’t trust the Swedish judiciary. If he goes to Sweden voluntarily they can hold him for anything. If the rape charge fails, they can try a charge for flying an UFO without a pilot’s licence next. Anything.

If he is extradited, Sweden can only prosecute allegations stated in the EAW. Is that difference so difficult to get?

You seem to be very certain of the Law. The fact remains that Assange has allegations of rape to answer. He is refusing to answer them. It leads many people to apply his own theory to the matter: if he has nothing to hide he would go and answer. So the fact he wont go means he has something to hide.

Lets hope the American's request his extradition. They could always send him to Sweden first, then send him back again !  

PS. Per the article he is a crap shag too.  

Do you suggest he should be extradited and put on trial because he is a “crap shag”? Is it an offence?

Most people would disagree with you there: a charge or an extradition should only be possible if there were reasonable grounds to assume an offence has been committed. In the case of an extradition a fair trial should be expected and, frankly, what the Swedes are doing doesn’t look like one.

Of course Assange should answer the allegations against him in a fair trial—and the extradition process is the only means he has to increase the chances that his trial in Sweden will be fair.

You say he is refusing to answer these allegations. Tell me, why did he stay in Sweden for weeks then, and only left when the Swedish prosecution told him he was allowed to do so? And why did he turn himself in in England when the EAW arrived?

The US have no reason to demand an extradition: Assange hasn’t broken any US American law. They have even been discussing if they could make a new law and use it retroactively. Tell me, do you think Britain would extradite him on such a charge? It might lead to some protests at least, right?

Now it emerges that Bradley Manning is treated in a way that amounts to torture if you apply the standards of a free country. And he is offered humane treatment in exchange for saying that Julian Assange had told him to download documents, because then it would be “conspiracy”.

Do you suggest he should be extradited and put on trial because he is a “crap shag”? Is it an offence?

The women involved might believe so. 

 Most people would disagree with you there: a charge or an extradition should only be possible if there were reasonable grounds to assume an offence has been committed. In the case of an extradition a fair trial should be expected and, frankly, what the Swedes are doing doesn’t look like one.

Under the terms of a European Arrest Warrant the country seeking extradition does not have to provide detailed evidence. It can, as Sweden is doing, issue such a warrant and the receiving is obliged to act upon it, as the UK has done. The UK's actions have been entirely correct.

Of course Assange should answer the allegations against him in a fair trial—and the extradition process is the only means he has to increase the chances that his trial in Sweden will be fair.

You say he is refusing to answer these allegations. Tell me, why did he stay in Sweden for weeks then, and only left when the Swedish prosecution told him he was allowed to do so? And why did he turn himself in in England when the EAW arrived?

Yes, you got one thing right: I have severe doubts that Assange’s trial in Sweden can be fair.

I know that there is no evidence needed for an EAW, but nevertheless it must state the alleged crimes, and other crimes can’t be prosecuted after an extradition. And if Sweden wants Assange only to extradite him to the US, they will need Britain’s okay.

“He is the recipient of stolen documents which I believe is an offence.”

He isn’t the recipient of stolen documents. Nothing was stolen. And--remember the Pentagon Papers? The right of the public to be informed takes precedence over the wish of a government to keep secrets.

“He is breaching Copyright Law, but that is not a criminal offence.”

The documents that were copied (not by Assange, but by his source) are the works of US government officials. Public domain, in other words.

“But the matter is for the USA authorities.”

In an extradition case it would be a matter for British or Swedish authorities too.

“Would we extradite him ?”

What does that extraordinary extradition treaty you have with the US say? Can Assange be extradited for something that isn’t an offence under British law?

“If I held that office ...”

God forbid.

“Bradley Manning has been arrested and is, correctly, in custody. Your statement 'treated in a way that amounts to torture' is arrant nonsense. Typical of your anti-American ravings and paranoia.”

Your Daily Mail didn’t have it then. Not surprising.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html

The info that Manning was offered humane treatment in exchange for saying that Assange had told him to download the documents was in Der Spiegel. The article is not available in English, do you want a link?

Note: just because you can’t find something in the Daily Mail it’s not necessarily anti-American ravings and paranoia.

I see that Assange continues to be outraged over the continued leaks of PUBLIC INFORMATION about him.  Now we have PUBLIC INFORMATION of court proceeding with his address and PUBLIC INFORMATION from the police report of his alleged sexual misconduct.  Nice to see the Leaker continue to enjoy a taste of his own medicine.  Did I mention that it was PUBLIC INFORMATION?

Their accounts, on which Sweden is trying to extradite him, state that the encounters began consensually, but changed when he persisted in having unprotected sex despite their insistence that he use a condom.

 Perhaps it is only in Germany where people have the right to change their minds when their partners refuse to use protection.  In the rest of the civilized world, "no" means "NO!" and forcing sex after withdrawing consent amounts to rape.

I looked up your link and didn’t find where it says that Assange is outraged at seeing this published. I know from other sources that he is outraged that his lawyers haven’t had full access to the files that you repeatedly and loudly call public information.

In a case of “he says, she says” one looks for inconsistencies in the claims of all persons. No definitely means no, but did the women say no?

Your article says that both women wanted to continue the friendship until they found out they were not the only woman he slept with. Do the victims of rape or whatever (by a relative stranger, not a partner) behave in that way? 

 I know from other sources that he is outraged that his lawyers haven’t had full access to the files that you repeatedly and loudly call public information.

Perhaps he needs to hire lawyers that are smart enough to use Google or give the good folks at the Guardian a call.  There are 68 pages of police reports leaked.  And yes, it is PUBLIC INFORMATION using the same argument advanced by Wikileaks since the information originated in government sources.  That makes it public property in your mind and why I enjoy watching Assange suffer his own medicine.  It is the very definition of irony and I want to see it played out to the fullest extent--hoisted by his own petard, indeed!

I'm fascinated that you continue to defend this creep who abuses women.  You would ignore criminal charges just to preserve advocacy for Socialist ideology?   So you think its okay for him to force himself on women against their will?  Women are not allowed to say "No" or "stop" in your mind?  I'm disappointed in you.  Exactly where do you draw the line?

Mike,

Are you really unable to see a difference between spreading information how a government works and spreading information about a person’s private life?

I'd appreciate an honest answer.

You are getting increasingly more stupid Momo, which is saying something. 

Lets cut the crap here. Assange MUST and WILL be extradited to Sweden to answer the allegations made. If they become charges the evidence will be tested in a Court of Law, just as it should be. Like Iron Mike I am surprised YOU have spent so much energy defending a man who may, or may not, be a rapist. The proper place for this is a court of law. You are using every device possible, casting doubt on the women involved when you have no knowledge of what the allegations actually are or the circumstances under which these possible offences occurred. Next you see some sinister plot in the allegations.

Does it not enter that empty space that passes for your head to think that Assange might very well be a rapist ? Blinded by your anti-Americanisum you cannot think this possible. Well I got news for you: it is possible. He must go to Sweden and answer the questions. It is no more complicated than that. 

Judging by Assange's performance on Newsnight last week I think there is a clear case to answer and I would go as far as to say it is very likely he is guilty. His answers were rambling and evasive, and he actually came across as quite barking.  

Oh and by the way. Some of the information Assange and his lawyers demanded be kept secret are in the UK a matter of public record. Why should he be treated any differently than anyone else under such circumstances ? 

“You are getting increasingly more stupid Momo, which is saying something”

while your verbal droppings on this thread show you are in your usual form, which is saying something too.

To sum up: you have some issues with both extradition treaties, but it’s of great comfort to you that a political dissenter is hit by these procedures.

Time for the usual wishes in this season: I wish you (and Mike) that someone accuses you of rape and that you will be treated in the same way you wish for Assange. The law should be the same for everyone.

“Like Iron Mike I am surprised YOU have spent so much energy defending a man who may, or may not, be a rapist”

“or may not”. Exactly. “I'm fascinated that you continue to defend this creep who abuses women.” (IM) Guilty until proven innocent. That’s the game you two are playing.

“Does it not enter that empty space that passes for your head to think that Assange might very well be a rapist ?”

It’s a mistake to expect even as much reason of you as the average bird possesses. It was me, by the way, who demanded a fair trial, and that must have been what has unhinged you again: you want a persecution, not a fair trial.

“Guilty until proven innocent. That’s the game you two are playing."

 No one has proclaimed guilt.  We and Sweden are demanding the Justice system prevail and Assange answer the allegations.  Your defense of his avoidance of the judicial process is justice delayed and therefore justice denied.

"...you are unable to get the meaning my posts because you are not allowed to read anything that has to do with wikileaks,"

And yet, here I am replying to a Wikileaks post.  It's a Christmas miracle! The government does not govern what I read.   I am only not allowed to use a government computer to access Wikileaks and related material and that is to prevent downloading classified information onto an unclassified computer system.  I am free to do as I will with my personal computer and this post is proof of it and your lack of reading skills.

I wish you (and Mike) that someone accuses you of rape and that you will be treated in the same way you wish for Assange. The law should be the same for everyone.

The law IS the same for everyone.  In fact, if I did the things Assange did, I would be treated the same and that includes the PUBLIC INFORMATION of police reports and court records that include my address.  Remember, this is not just "someone" making an accusation, it is the state bringing charges based upon evidence gathered in an investigation.  It is far less frivolous than you suggest.

It was me, by the way, who demanded a fair trial, and that must have been what has unhinged you again: you want a persecution, not a fair trial.

He has to BE there to get a fair trial!  You have consistently dismissed the charges and the grounds for sending him back to Sweden.  Nor is your "fair trial" advocacy consistent with your approval of secret police and shadow courts whose records and proceedings are not public domain.

“No one has proclaimed guilt.”

Oh yes, you have: “this creep who abuses women”

“We and Sweden are demanding the Justice system prevail and Assange answer the allegations”

Assange stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks in order to answer the allegations. Sweden chose not to hear him, and not even to inform him of these allegations. Instead they explicitly told him he was free to leave Sweden.

Why? I assume because there is no evidence, otherwise it would have been produced.

Under Swedish law there is no reason for an arrest warrant, because the prosecution hasn’t brought forward any evidence. Under English law there isn’t either. There is one loophole though: the EAW. No evidence needed for an arrest warrant under the EAW. Assange has been in jail for 10 days and he will be in house arrest for a long time without a single shred of evidence seen by a judge.

We will see if British courts decide, and once they have done so Strasbourg will have their say. If Assange wins there, the EAW will be dead as it deserves to be.

“The law IS the same for everyone.  In fact, if I did the things Assange did, …”

How do you know what he did?

“I would be treated the same and that includes the PUBLIC INFORMATION of police reports and court records that include my address.”

No, it would not. In Germany you would not be identifiable until a conviction. After a conviction media would be allowed to use your full name for 6 months when they report about the case. Afterwards you would have the right to anonymity again. Only if you choose to go public, media are free to print your name. I don’t know exactly how Sweden handles this, but they handle it fairly restrictive too.

You are aware that there are death threats against Assange, aren’t you? The risk for him and his host would be decreased by not publishing the address.

“He has to BE there to get a fair trial!”

He stayed on for 5 weeks and was told he was free to go. He offered to answer questions in the Swedish embassy in London, not an altogether unusual procedure. He is not even charged with anything. The exact allegations are unknown to him. Only PARTS OF THE INFORMATION are made public.

Assange’s Swedish lawyer has seen more of the information, but he was not allowed to copy some documents which he found very interesting, or to take notes. He is under a gag order and can’t say what they are, only that he wants to get hold of them very much. I guess they are in Assange’s favour then.

“You have consistently dismissed the charges and the grounds for sending him back to Sweden.”

There are no charges! As long as the prosecution does not tell him what exactly the allegations are, he can’t defend himself.

Nor is your "fair trial" advocacy consistent with your approval of secret police and shadow courts whose records and proceedings are not public domain.

I’ve been derided before when I said that our privacy laws are much stricter than you Americans can imagine. Possibly you get it in a hundred years or so. I want Assange to enjoy the same privacy rights every defendant is entitled to.

And now I wonder if I get a reply or only more trolling.

I’ve been derided before when I said that our privacy laws are much stricter than you Americans can imagine. Possibly you get it in a hundred years or so. I want Assange to enjoy the same privacy rights every defendant is entitled to.

I find your uber defense of both strict privacy laws AND transparent government to be hilarious.  You really want it both ways and fail to see the paradox.  Too funny!

I don't see you defending the privacy rights of the INDIVIDUALS exposed in stolen Wikileaks documents with the same passion.  I wonder why?  Why is their privacy less valuable than Assange's privacy?  Because you do not sympathize with them? 

Then say which privacy rights of INDIVIDUALS have been exposed.

Wikileaks has exposed how officials, elected or not, rule. This belongs to the political sphere and must be transparent.

I find your inability to grasp the difference between private and public sphere hilarious. It’s not a matter of sympathy: I am not interested in politicians’ private lives, but I want to know how they do their job. And I mean job, not blowjob.

Why is that so difficult to get for you?

If this was about the privacy of individuals, why do so many of your politicians say that wikileaks should publish Chinese or Russian cables instead?

Then say which privacy rights of INDIVIDUALS have been exposed.

Gladly!  Perhaps you can explain why Assange's privacy rights are greater than Dr Hossein Ghanbarzadeh Vahedi.  The irresponsible release by Assange of details of Vahedi's escape from Iran endanger the lives of the family he left behind as well as those who assisted him.  Are their lives and privacy less important than Assange?

Reached at his practice in Los Angeles, Dr. Hossein Vahedi - who had not heard of the massive leak of classified U.S. government documents - immediately worried about his loved ones in Iran.

"This is very bad for my family," he said. "How could this be printed?"

Vahedi's fears echoed the worries raised at all levels of the State Department about WikiLeaks causing casualties.

"Dozens if not hundreds" of people will be killed, tortured or arrested because the documents revealed they were helping Americans abroad, said one midlevel Foreign Service officer in the field.

How about the threatened release by Assange of financial data of INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS of Bank of America?    What is the value of their privacy?

And what exactly was revealed to Iran? That his passport was confiscated? They ought to know that, since they did it. That he did escape? Obvious, since he is now in the US. That he had the help of US officials, and now Iranian-American relations will become less friendly? Umm. The plan of an escape that they could prevent? No, it’s a thing that happened in the past. And not unusual, by the way. Iran’s borders are difficult to control. I’ve read several reports where Iranians describe how they escaped over the border.

Wikileaks has announced their next publication refers to a large US American bank. How do you know it is data of INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS of Bank of America and not corruption or fraud of that bank in a very large style? You’ve had your guess, let me have mine: mortgages, subprime-junk, foreclosures. That would be thrilling.

I'm sure in Momoland, the government would not seek reprisals on the family or friends that helped a political prisoner escape, but not in Iran.  It was HE who expressed fear for the safety of his family over the leak.  Are you claiming to be more of an expert in Iranian government than him?  You are either incredibly well-informed or incredibly arrogant.  Most likely it is the latter.

INDIVIDUAL mortages and foreclosure contain privacy data including account numbers, addresses, social security numbers, employment history, etc. ect. etc.  Have you lived as a tenant all your life? Are you unaware of all the personal data in a mortgage?

“Irrelevant. You have no proper understanding of how the Swedish Justice System works.”

Meaning you have, I suppose.

“You say he was told to leave Sweden ? By whom ? Regardless of what you may think the Swedish Prosecutor is doing his duty according to the law.”

By that same Swedish Prosecutor.

http://wlcentral.org/node/422

“No there are no charges. But there is a Warrant, and that warrant is valid and so the law must take its course.”

Ah, the EAW has a new defender. A sudden U-turn. Well, one never knows with Mad Bird Disease, it can have odd effects. You are aware that the best chance to scrap the thing will be if this case fails, aren’t you?

“As His Lordship pointed out to Mr Assange last week he will in all probability be extradited. There are as far as one can see no grounds to refuse the request. That is the law”

The extradition process would at least protect him against being extradited from Sweden to the US. I know that you said this wasn’t true, but this is how the vacuum under your topmost feathers shows. Look what the Swedish prosecution says: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

“Personally I think this is wrong. .... I believe this is unjust. … You wont agree of course.”

Since you are so much convinced of the superiority of everything British, I’ll refrain from saying if I disagree or not.

“If your system is different that is up to you, but in the United Kingdom these is how we do things and have done things for over a 1000 years. You should have more respect for our traditions.”

See?

And we have been a republic for at least 800 years and use a balance between traditions and modernity instead of blindly clinging to traditions. Although we have had a habeas corpus and narrow views on extraditions ever since we have had a written constitution, which means since 1410. We have always had narrow views on kingdoms too.   :-(

I didn’t know that owls can get rabies. I’ve learnt something new.