Julian Assange

[Pete]

So...

I cannot bear this man. I feel he is the biggest self important windbag around at the moment. Hopefully he shall be nabbed on the way out of the embassy and shipped off to Sweeden to face the charges levelled at him.

I, for one, do not think much of the whole "oh but he'll get sent to the US and killed" thing. Aside from the fact he is safer in Sweden from being sent to the US than he is here, you can't extradite someone from the EU if they are to face death penalty charges.

Peter Tatchell, another famed windbag, just tweeted that he'll get sent to the US on non-capital charges and then a new set will be brought up. Frankly that strikes me as unlikely as it would be seen as a breach of trust of the EU extradition system which I do not believe the US will risk for the sake of one man.

Views pls?

[Nick Harvey]

I'm certainly in the anti Julian brigade.

Not sure the British governmet ought to go barging into the embassy to grab him. However, there are two choices for him. Either he's, effectively, a prisoner in the embassy for the rest of his life or they try to move him from the embassy to an airport to take him to Equador. If they try the latter, then grab him between the embassy and the airport and re-direct him to Sweden. The days of hiding people in diplomatic bags are long gone, so there has to be a point where he can be arrested by the British authorities.

If the Swedes subsequently send him on to the USA, then so be it. I don't think I'm sufficiently in the freedom of speech brigade to be bothered if he ends up in the US in front of a court answering charges of unauthorised release of secrets.

[marksi]

For years I watched various politicians here defend Irish people in various parts of the world and defend them and want them back in Ireland simply because they are Irish and therefore MUST be innocent. (Mainly referring to the case of three Irish men found in the Columbian jungle who definitely weren't training Marxist rebels there, and who were definitely innocent of everything according to the woman who went on to be NI's Education Minister, despite the fact she lived in a different jurisdiction).

I don't buy Nationality as a reason to suggest guilt or innocence.

Which is why I don't buy the fact that just because he's, erm, "encouraged" open government, that he might possibly be guilty of something entirely unrelated to that.

Of course he might be innocent.

I'm not aware of Sweden having a particularly terrible justice system, so let's send him there and trust them to set up a fair trial.

[Gavin Scott]

Reading some of the comments on the BBC and Channel 4 facebook stories, you'd be forgiven for thinking he was a mass murderer. There's a level of contempt and vilification that goes way beyond someone who comes across as "smug" at worst, with a totally (so far) unsubstantiated charge of rape against him.

Does it even make sense that someone who routinely reveals other peoples secrets would leave himself open to a rape charge anyway? I know it takes all sorts, but something doesn't have the ring of truth to it here. And yet despite my reservations, even I find myself, deep down, hating him just a bit.

Why is this? Is it possible we're being led, sheep-like to this conclusion by constant negative press?

So far, all we know for sure is that he's revealed secrets that some governments don't want us to know. Does that merit this global action against him?

[Beep]

I'm certainly in the anti Julian brigade.

Not sure the British governmet ought to go barging into the embassy to grab him. However, there are two choices for him. Either he's, effectively, a prisoner in the embassy for the rest of his life or they try to move him from the embassy to an airport to take him to Equador. If they try the latter, then grab him between the embassy and the airport and re-direct him to Sweden. The days of hiding people in diplomatic bags are long gone, so there has to be a point where he can be arrested by the British authorities.

If the Swedes subsequently send him on to the USA, then so be it. I don't think I'm sufficiently in the freedom of speech brigade to be bothered if he ends up in the US in front of a court answering charges of unauthorised release of secrets.

They can of course attempt to remove him using the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, if he wants to try and be a prisoner in the embassy! They'd be doing something outside diplomatic mission therefore the above can be used and not contravene international law! However, in the short term the argument it's entirely diplomatic!

I can't bear the egotistical little runt - it's a strange day when people start saying the sexual assault allegations are a political ploy to get him to the US via Sweden.

Let's just address the salient fact if we let him go we tell criminals to seek refuge in the nearest embassy and you're home free. It's wrong. He breached Bail in the UK and he's alleged to have sexually assaulted somebody in Sweden - if it was anybody else they'd be on the first plane back to Sweden! He's just an attention seeking criminal, nothing more - nothing less

One thing I don't get though, he was in the UK - how can the US argue that somebody in a foreign country can be guilty of committing an offence whilst outside that country? If somebody hit a British citizen in the US would we demand their extradition to face 3 magistrates over here? That's seriously fishy!

[Pete]

And yet despite my reservations, even I find myself, deep down, hating him just a bit.

As a fellow reader of Private Eye I presume you've read all the various things about how he's wound up practically everyone he worked with at both the NYT and the Guardian? Might explain some of that distaste for him.

I also think another issue re: Sweden and their rape charge is the whole "trying to fit everything into English law" problem.

People come out with comments "oh why did they do it this way, why didn't they do this" without understanding the idiosyncrasies of the Swedish legal system. It's exactly the same as occurred with Madeline McCann's parents and that hideous word "arguido".

[Pete]

They can of course attempt to remove him using the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, if he wants to try and be a prisoner in the embassy

I very much doubt they would and think the fact it was mentioned was very silly. Obviously Ecuador's response to it was pathetically hysterical and morons such as Michael Moore (whom I cannot think of without seeing his Team America puppet) were bound to latch onto it.

Still the said act (made, IIRC during the parliamentary washup of 87) was rushed legislation in response to the very specific issue of the Libyan embassy and Yvonne Fletcher. It's unlikely it'd fully apply here and it's very unlikely they'd use it even if Assange did sit in the embassy for years.

International Law is a strange term given that there is really no such thing. It's all based upon trust and if you break that trust you break your own protection under it.

Given that out response to the frankly much more serious issue of Alexander Litvinenko's murder (and Russia's refusal to extradite the likely perpetrator) was to expel three diplomats I find it unlikely we would go to a greater extreme of cutting off diplomatic relations with a country that gets on with another country that is itching for a war with us (Argentina) over one man and a rape charge in a foreign country.

And it's worth remembering this is what its all about. Ignoring the bluster and the high profileness and the whole wikileaks issue, all Assange has been arrested for in the UK is for the rape charge in Sweeden. Nothing else.

[Gavin Scott]

And yet despite my reservations, even I find myself, deep down, hating him just a bit.

As a fellow reader of Private Eye I presume you've read all the various things about how he's wound up practically everyone he worked with at both the NYT and the Guardian? Might explain some of that distaste for him.

I also think another issue re: Sweden and their rape charge is the whole "trying to fit everything into English law" problem.

People come out with comments "oh why did they do it this way, why didn't they do this" without understanding the idiosyncrasies of the Swedish legal system. It's exactly the same as occurred with Madeline McCann's parents and that hideous word "arguido".

Hmm, yes I do remember all that stuff about him selling his story and what an unbearable prick he sounded.

But at the same time, if that was the standard required to destroy a person, why is Katie Price still alive?

[all new Phil]

What annoys me even more than Assange is the pricks in the V For Vendetta masks who are hanging around the embassy where he is. Maybe it's the smug look on the mask, or maybe it's just that I love the film, but I hate how they wear it. It REALLY bugs me!

[Dr Lobster*]

assange has never come across as likeable to me. i always found him aloof, arrogant and slimy.

the sexual crimes he is alleged to have committed are undoubtedly serious and if the allegations are credible should be investigated without question, however, i have real doubts about the legitimacy of the process and whether regardless of what he ends up being charged with (if anything) he would ever have a fair trial due to the way he has been vilified or due to pressures from external sources.

i can't help think this is all a great big wheeze so the u.s. government can get their hands on him so they can lock him up forever and make an example out of him. i guess they realise their position as a world super power would be pretty precarious if anybody and everybody thought they could get away with leaking embarrassing state secrets for a few minutes of fleeting notoriety.

it is of course amusing to watch and see the uk government and authorities completely powerless and tangled up in their own artificial rules over this, and this whole escapade is down to the government's indecisiveness (as with the abu qatada extradition) if the government were that desperate to send him to sweden, they should have just allowed the extradition when they had the chance when he was under curfew and put up with the 10 minutes of flak afterwards or but in truth they should have deported him back to australia right at the outset and let the tax payers over there pick up the tab for this pathetic sideshow and let them sort it out.

[Sput]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original reason Assange's people were claiming the reason he wouldn't go to Sweden was that he'd be likely to be imprisoned whilst awaiting trial. Now he seems to be saying he's worried about extradition to the USA. What I don't understand is, if America is so keen to extradite him, and our extradition agreement is supposedly so unbalanced in favour of the Americans (as many people claim, but I don't personally agree with), why haven't the USA opened proceedings whilst he's been here?

My position on the charges is that, in the end, two people have accused him of this stuff and Sweden really shouldn't be in the habit of ignoring that because it seems a bit suspect given his background, even if it does seem a bit suspect given his background. To me, it doesn't quite make sense and it seems like he's determined to avoid any whiff of a trial.