SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Sweden's highest court has thrown out Julian Assange's appeal against his arrest warrant where he is wanted for questioning. Prosecutor Marianne Ny changed her mind earlier about questioning Assange in London. Assange has repeatedly requested that the questioning take place over the phone or in London as per common practice, to avoid traveling to Sweden where he fears he risks extradition to the US. Sweden has also repeatedly refused to give assurances regarding possible extradition.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Assange Appeal Rejected by Sweden's Supreme Court
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday May 12 2015, @06:01PM
by his own volition. Nobody forced him
He had a choice; yes; that is true. He could either "do the right thing", face a series of Kafkaesque kangaroo courts and then rot in gaol. Or he could do a runner.
Now tell me: what is a man's life worth? If your incarceration meant that you could improve the lives of others perhaps one could consider it worthwhile. In this case though his undoubted incarceration would make no difference, would improve the lot of others not one iota, and his trial would make a mockery of all that good men hold as an image of true justice. There is nothing to be gained and all to be lost - simply for the sake of following arbitrary rules; created to ensure justice for humans; and now being subverted to salve the stung pride of a series of petty bureaucrats.
Sweden could, of course, bend its own rules. There is no good reason he can't answer questions "from home" because the plain truth - obvious to all the players in this particular farce - is that they want to lock him up. Why? The Rules. It is not moral to follow immoral rules, even if they were originally laid down with the best of intentions. An immoral use of the most lawful action is still a manifestly immoral action.
I can't rule out that a one way all expenses paid trip to Club Gitmo
Are you truly suggesting that Assange should "do the proper thing" and submit to due process? Despite having reached the conclusion that he will likely be bounced off, not just to gaol, but to hell on earth?
Our sense of what is right and proper - to submit to the blind justice of a reasonable society - ceases to be relevant when the justice is neither blind nor the society reasonable. Be not angry with the man for not baring his chest to be wounded for the most imperious of reasons. Let us each be ashamed that we can not control; or perhaps are unwilling to control; our own rabid dogs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday May 12 2015, @08:01PM
Now tell me: what is a man's life worth? If your incarceration meant that you could improve the lives of others perhaps one could consider it worthwhile. In this case though his undoubted incarceration would make no difference
He is incarcerated anyhow, just on his own accord. Can he be an effective manager of Wikileaks from that embassy, without being able to freely use communications and meet with other people? I'm sure the embassy allows his stay only on some very specific terms.
Are you truly suggesting that Assange should "do the proper thing" and submit to due process? Despite having reached the conclusion that he will likely be bounced off, not just to gaol, but to hell on earth?
Quite a few warriors led the attack knowing well in advance that the attack may be futile, and that they may be wounded or killed. Quite a few warriors defended a position and died to the last man. The trial would give Assange the chance to defend himself, his work, and his reasons. Without the trial he allows the opponent to pour dirt on him. Without the trial Assange loses the only weapon he has - his name, his popularity, respect for his work. An attack on the respect was already attempted by accusing him of rape. Him skipping bail caused further harm. One has to decide, is he a hero who proudly goes to the gallows, or a common criminal who hides from the police in bushes. Those two roles are not compatible.
Our sense of what is right and proper - to submit to the blind justice of a reasonable society - ceases to be relevant when the justice is neither blind nor the society reasonable.
He could try to expose the corrupt court when he defends himself. Right now he cannot do anything.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Tuesday May 12 2015, @10:05PM
You make some very compelling arguments.
He is incarcerated anyhow, just on his own accord.
Quite true. I suppose the significant difference is that his incarceration is also on his own terms (or at least his choice from amongst the options available to him). You are quite correct about his lack of effectiveness, though. In the grand scheme of things I'm not sure that's such a bad thing since; just like an old soldier; there comes a time when we have to put down our sword and leave the fight to others. Ignoring for a second whether his actions were right or wrong, at least he fought hard for something he believed in and perhaps that can be considered sufficient.
Without the trial he allows the opponent to pour dirt on him.
Absolutely. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I would point out a few issues with the "go to trial" option. First of all, as you so eloquently put:
a common criminal who hides from the police in bushes
can be seen from two sides of the fence. On one side we see Mr Assange hiding in a cowardly fashion. On the other side though we must ask ourselves: from who is he hiding? That's why I invoked Kafka in my original post. He can not know from who he hides - he can not see the enemy. From this particular side of the fence: is it not those who seek to destroy him that are the ones hiding in the bushes? He's in a horrible position. If he comes out into the open, those lurking in the bushes will come out, one by one, each taking a shot at him until he is no more. That's the nasty part about this business - it's not a clean fight where two gentlemen square up. There is no honour in this business - none at all. So how can we talk of honour, of "maning up", when the honour would be only one sided?
is he a hero who proudly goes to the gallows[?]
And I submit to you that this would be entirely futile. Not without merit; I hasten to add; but still ultimately futile.
He could try to expose the corrupt court when he defends himself.
(Emphasis is mine.) He will be forever shadow-boxing because he will never get a clear look at his foe.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I try to put myself in his position and I can't say what I would do. Like you said, the roles of hero and coward "are not compatible". You make a strong argument for finishing the fight for reasons of honour but I do wonder if that would be an empty act. Even if he wins, he loses - and we know that the only way forward in those cases is not to play at all.
The law does not cope very well with fuzzy situations. At least when somebody murders another person it is crystal clear who is the guilty party. Assange's actions are not so clear cut - not by any stretch of the imagination. So what will necessarily happen is that the law will twist and turn, grappling with its own apparatus, and the only one who stands to lose anything personally is the one lone human at the centre of the maelstrom.
On reflection; if it were me; I'd probably leave the Embassy, although I am glad I need only to imagine this, sitting here comfortably in front of my computer. If there must be a fight, best be at it directly. I doubt there will be any winners - I don't think it's possible - simply because there is no clarity over right and wrong in these situations. I imagine it akin to going to the gallows for a crime you didn't commit, hearing the baying of the crowd and the feeling of complete helplessness and injustice, and just wanting to protest your innocence. But the noose tightens around your neck never the less. It must be a truly bitter pill to swallow.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 12 2015, @11:06PM
So how can we talk of honour, of "maning up", when the honour would be only one sided?
Honor is one-sided since death of King Arthur :-( The Schwartzkopf Doctrine [wikipedia.org] spells it out quite clearly - attack with overwhelming force.
You are absolutely correct, of course, that opponents of Mr. Assange are TLA types that will not be speaking on the witness stand. But that's the cards that were dealt to Assange. And, honestly, what would *you* expect if you make it your business to leak secrets of governments who, basically, own this little planet? Assange should be happy that he was not beaten to death by a few unidentified drunks. I do not quite understand why; someone is protecting him from physical harm, I guess.
Even if he wins, he loses - and we know that the only way forward in those cases is not to play at all.
Indeed. I don't play these spy games; and you probably don't do that either. But he did - and he is paying for it. The TLA types are snickering in background how they managed to arrest him without even going to trial :-) They scared the guy into self-arresting. Now Assange has a problem. If he stays in the embassy, that's the end of him - literally. If he leaves, it means that he lost years of his life for nothing. Breaking the bail would be still a heavy burden upon him - he should not have done that. That's why fathers always tell their sons: "Be a man, don't run, face the danger..." However the brave Sir Julian ran, ran away. This act alone makes him a suspect in the eyes of the crowd.
It's probably not too late for him to prepare for his defense and come out and face the music. This is the best solution, IMO, unless he likes to live like a hermit. Also, he needs money to live - who is feeding and clothing him? I don't think it's the embassy. What is the source of that money, and how soon will it dry up?
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Tuesday May 12 2015, @11:26PM
I don't play these spy games; and you probably don't do that either.
Well, not today. My handler has given me the day off. :-)
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday May 12 2015, @10:20PM
Sweden could, of course, bend its own rules. There is no good reason he can't answer questions "from home" because the plain truth - obvious to all the players in this particular farce - is that they want to lock him up. Why? The Rules.
But why should they bend their rules for him? Because you, and some other people, think that he is good or doing good work? He has done almost everything possible to obstruct justice and his reward should be to receive preferential treatment? Nobody else would get as much preferential treatment as Assange demands, or other people demand on his behalf. All based on a belief, and baseless claim, that he is going to get one way ticket to Gitmo.
Are you truly suggesting that Assange should "do the proper thing" and submit to due process? Despite having reached the conclusion that he will likely be bounced off, not just to gaol, but to hell on earth?
Yes. Almost every person arrested claims, or believes, how innocent they are. Most of them don't do like Assange and lock themselves into a foreign embassy in a foreign country. If he wanted to set things right he should look forward to his day in court. As it is now he just looks guilty and paranoid. Personally I believe the case would get dismissed quite fast and even if it reached trial I doubt he would be sent to Gitmo on a he said she said case.
I'm not doubting that Assange believes, or claims, that he will get a one way ticket to Gitm. There is just very little in the realm of facts to back that up with except that he says so. As far as I know Sweden has not sent anyone to Gitmo previously and I seriously doubt he would be the first one. Are people even being sent to Gitmo anymore? There has previously been one person with Swedish citizenship that have been sent to Gitmo, his name is Ghezali. He was a small time crook that found Allah and somehow ended up in Tora-Bora. He got a trip to Gitmo. After being released he went on the jihad-world-tour and was later picked up again in Pakistan. The other pair of people that could even come close to the issue was renditioned by the CIA and sent to Egypt, Alzery and Agiza. Assange is not even close to being any of these fellas. His Gitmo fantasy is quite frankly in his head and I have never seen any evidence for it being even close to a reality. So I don't see how the Swedish government could promise him that he won't get extradited to the USA for espionage if such a request was presented to them. But then that request could just as well also be presented the the UK or Ecuador.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Tuesday May 12 2015, @11:22PM
But why should they bend their rules for him?
Assange isn't a petty criminal. He's at the epicentre of a pan-national situation. When the game moves to this level there is no normal manner of handling things.
Now I understand that Sweden wants to ask some questions of Mr Assange, ostensibly in pursuit of justice for some of their citizens. That's a good thing and under normal circumstances this would be handled through the usual procedure. Sweden has a choice: either it can provide assurances that it will not hand Assange over to a foreign power (as a by-product of coming over for a chat), or they can visit him and ask him questions somewhere else. For the simple reason that the circumstances are different means the rules might have to be different. If what Sweden truly wants is justice - and by that I mean actual justice and not just ticking boxes on legal forms - then they would be better served approaching the issue in a way that extant circumstances dictate it must be approached.
He has done almost everything possible to obstruct justice
Certainly some of his actions have not been particularly commendable. The elephant in the room is that a large part of his work has been pointing out that "justice" in the modern world is somewhat broken. It's a bit much to expect someone to have faith in a system they have no faith in. Besides as I said before these aren't normal circumstances and as such, there is no normal way of looking at them. In ideal circumstances we should not treat Assange in a special fashion but, like it or not, he is in a unique position. The reality of the situation indicates we need to handle it differently.
Not everything in life goes according to rules. Life got there first, the rules are only a construct to help things operate smoothly. Sometimes pragmatism must win the day. Justice would be best served (for Sweden) if they simply came to visit him. Unfortunately for all concerned, they appear to have forgotten what they set out to achieve. In effect, they are denying justice to their own citizens and have chosen instead to become a pawn in a much bigger battle.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday May 13 2015, @12:29AM
Assange isn't a petty criminal. He's at the epicentre of a pan-national situation.
That remains to be seen, we don't know yet. Just be cause he is famous doesn't mean he can't be a petty criminal. What he is accused of is normally not a considered a petty crime tho.
... or they can visit him and ask him questions somewhere else.
I can see a few problems with this. It would set a horrible president for the future. That they would cave in to the demands of suspects as how to, where and when they question suspects. There are valid reasons they, and law enforcement in general, wants to conduct interviews or interrogations in an area they control. If they did this favor for Assange they might then be forced to do the same for everyone else. But if for the sake of argument we say that they do interview him at the embassy and after the interview they find that they have enough evidence or cause to proceed with the prosecution they are once again stuck since he can just decide to keep staying at the embassy. They just don't have any control over the situation or their suspect, which is horrible from their point of view. All that work with questioning him at the embassy have then been in vain if they can't proceed afterwards. I think these are the reasons that they don't want to question Assange at the embassy.
That said tho I don't think that they, the people Assange pissed off, are all that upset about him locking himself into the embassy. For them justice is probably served by him locking himself away from the world. I just don't think it's served for him and then rest of us without him stepping out and letting justice take its course.
If he for some totally unlikely reason was abducted by some three-letter-agency and, or by some other way, sent to the Waterboard-Hilton he would become an instant martyr for his cause. That would be a shit-storm rarely before seen and I don't really think anyone wants that. No matter how much they might hate him and what he has done.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Wednesday May 13 2015, @01:23AM
There are valid reasons they, and law enforcement in general, wants to conduct interviews or interrogations in an area they control.
Reasons, sure. Not valid ones, though!
At the moment he is wanted for questioning. Whilst it behoves a good citizen to rise to that occasion, it needs to be understood by law enforcement that this is entirely at the citizen's pleasure. If indeed Sweden believes it has a case against the man, they can arrest him. Whilst they won't be able to compel him to leave the embassy, it would certainly indicate to the rest of the world that they had serious and proper business with him - "proper" in this case meaning "we aren't simply a lapdog for the USA".
I'm sure it would be disappointing for Swedish officials if they went to the trouble of building a case - only to be unable to lay a hand on him - however that is their job. They either have a case against him, or they don't - and they have to do the legwork either way.
I'd look far less favourably on a man resisting arrest (for the Swedish caper, not the US one) by hiding through diplomatic immunity. If the Swedish were serious they should charge him and then he'd be a wanted; if untouchable; man.
For them justice is probably served by him locking himself away from the world.
Sadly, I don't think it does. It neutralises him and acts as retributive punishment, but it is not justice.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @12:51AM
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- as written in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
Some no doubt well-meaning white ministers criticized King for violating the law. They pointed out that the civil rights movement would surely get a lot more respect, were protestors to obey the law, by not blocking city streets for example.
King's response, written one some scraps of paper he begged from the jailer, pointed out that it was imperative to obey just laws, but just as important to disobey unjust ones.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not write advisory opinions as to the high courts of some other countries. That is, one cannot simply ask the court to strike down an unconstitutional law, you have to actually violate it, get arrested, spend a lot of time in the slammer, spend many years and a great deal of money to have your case hear in washington, at which time it might be turned away due to some petty issue such as not having standing, or that your claim could have been handled in a state court.
It is for that specific reason, that I get myself arrested quite a lot. The best I've gotten so far is to have my cases dismissed several times.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]