tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post5999055742287441092..comments2024-03-19T10:46:51.070+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Assange: Jaw JawObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-167094521644643302012-11-13T04:43:05.188+00:002012-11-13T04:43:05.188+00:00Great post. I agreed with your point of view.Great post. I agreed with your point of view.Lawyers in maidstone kenthttp://www.vertexlaw.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-19383298097251877952012-09-17T11:24:35.853+01:002012-09-17T11:24:35.853+01:00Your point about what is known as "dual crimi...Your point about what is known as "dual criminality" is well made. It was dealt with at length in the Divisional Court's judgment - <a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=Assange&method=all" rel="nofollow">here</a>. When the case went to the Supreme Court dual criminality was not appealed. The only issue in the Supreme Court was whether the European Arrest warrant had been issued by a judicial authority. The court held that it had been.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-48265412336500742752012-09-14T08:08:04.209+01:002012-09-14T08:08:04.209+01:00The fact that Britain is acting so insane about ar...The fact that Britain is acting so insane about arresting a guy because he is 'wanted for questioning about a sexual assault in Sweden' is ludicrous and laughable. Obviously all the big governments who were embarrassed by his leaks have an agenda and want retribution - it's as simple as that.<br /><br />I was under the impression, but could be wrong, that under EU guidelines a person could not be extradited for allegedly breaking a law in one country when that law does not exist within the country the 'wanted party' is situated. The law Julian Assange is accused of breaking is either 'refusal to wear condom during sexual act against wants of partner' or else 'woman states demand partner wear condom, he says okay but then doesn't really put one on prior to sex'. Obviously I don't know the wording of the actual law or which he is accused of doing - but in Sweden not wearing a condom when the woman asks you to is tantamount to RAPE. I don't think there is such a law in England, and even though it's a messed up thing to do - I think it's a crap law.<br /><br />The same E.U. Human rights idiots want to decriminalize having sex with someone without informing them of your HIV positive status. So it would be okay to give somebody AIDS (KNOWINGLY) but you go to jail for pretending to put on a condom when you did't?<br /><br />The hypocrisy staggers like methane gas; and I highly doubt any other 'dude' wanted for not wearing a condom in Sweden would even be LOOKED for in England.BunBun4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13000914304158594556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-59005581390860681232012-08-21T06:39:16.426+01:002012-08-21T06:39:16.426+01:00What is interests me about this case is the confli...What is interests me about this case is the conflict between 'the law' as written and 'justice' - not written. Similarly the conflict between my feeling that Assange ought to face the music and my delight that he is putting two fingers up to the Americans. Were I involved I would be troubled by the feeling that if he were led off to an American jail forever I had participated in a disgusting injustice, no good then to say 'just doing my job mate' - or 'the law must be upheld'.<br /><br />Then there is political pressure and the alleged security assistance we get from the Americans, this seems to come at a high price. Then indeed is the nature of the crimes in Sweden, if what I read is true Assange is not likely to get more than a slap on the wrist for these. As I said - conflict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-13379682926609848072012-08-19T08:12:46.611+01:002012-08-19T08:12:46.611+01:00The article on the blog of the European Journal of...The article on the blog of the <a href="http://www.ejiltalk.org/may-the-uk-terminate-the-diplomatic-status-of-ecuadors-embassy/" rel="nofollow">European Journal of International Law</a> is well worth reading. ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-17359900941171209232012-08-18T20:34:51.815+01:002012-08-18T20:34:51.815+01:00The UK law which he claims empowers him to do it d...<i> The UK law which he claims empowers him to do it does no such thing, as the most cursory reading of its provisions will confirm.</i><br /><br />I respectfully disagree. An embassy is foreign soil, additionally protected by the Vienna Convention ad nauseam. The law says that the embassy's diplomatic status can be revoked at the snap of a finger (subject to him being "satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law" per s1(4) Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987). If that status is revoked, then it is just a building in London, and the police will be legally at liberty to enter it to apprehend a bail-jumping fugitive.<br /><br />Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-42703803642732119682012-08-18T17:37:10.335+01:002012-08-18T17:37:10.335+01:00For a further viewpoint on the actions of the Brit...For a further viewpoint on the actions of the British government see <a href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/" rel="nofollow">Craig Murray</a>ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-1181262632559091982012-08-18T13:10:24.472+01:002012-08-18T13:10:24.472+01:00I appreciate the link to my own post on this subje...I appreciate the link to my own post on this subject, which incidentally is prompting some very interesting comments. Any attempt by our police (or, worse, troops!) to enter the Ecuador embassy in London to arrest and extract Mr Assange without the permission of the ambassador would be contrary to international law and would provoke an almighty row in which Britain would come off worst; I can't quite believe that Mr Hague seriously contemplates doing such a mad thing, even as a last resort. The UK law which he claims empowers him to do it does no such thing, as the most cursory reading of its provisions will confirm. Unfortunately the row precipitated by Britain's barmy threat to commit diplomatic hara-kiri is now overshadowing the rights and wrongs of Ecuador's action in offering Assange political asylum and declaring him a refugee, which he manifestly isn't. He should go to Sweden and there answer the allegations against him of rape and other misdeeds. Meanwhile there seems no pressing need for the British government to take any action at all.<br /><br />I assume that the reinforcement of the police outside the Ecuadorean embassy is to try to ensure that if Assange tries to slip out, he will be promptly recognised, arrested, and extradited to Sweden. A very sensible precaution! Other interpretations sound suspiciously like paranoia. Brian Barderhttp://www.barder.com/ephems/noreply@blogger.com