Talk:Julian Assange

Anyone got time & knowledge here?

The Swedish case against Assange needs to be written up, but I don't think I can do so neutrally.

My sympathies are entirely with Assange. As I see it, these two women both jumped into bed with him within a day or so of meeting, both were seen in public apparently on good terms with him afterward, and both bragged about their conquest. Any accusation of rape is absurd. The prosecutors first dropped the charges, then re-instated them. The whole thing strikes me as nonsense.

I'd say the Daily Mail story is the best summary I have seen. Sandy Harris 05:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Another summary is here. Haven't seen anything as clear from the other perspective. --Daniel Mietchen 11:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An article by one of Assange's lawyers. [1] Sandy Harris 12:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Sun Swedish women did not want Assange charged Sandy Harris 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

He got bail. [2]. Sandy Harris 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Except it is being appealed.

His profile from an online dating site has turned up. [3] Sandy Harris 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post has a feminist comment, mostly pro-Assange. Sandy Harris 13:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

More interesting stuff [4], accusing Swedish police of bias and misbehaviour. Sandy Harris 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It now appears Assange is almost certain to be extradited to Sweden — he just lost yet another appeal — so this is becoming topical. Would anyone care to take it on? Sandy Harris 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP text, headed "Alleged sex offenses"

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange and an arrest warrant issued in Sweden in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31, one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm. The second woman had organized a seminar and news conference in Sweden for Assange, was acting as Assange's spokeswoman, and hosting him as a guest in her home during his stay in Sweden. Shortly after the investigation opened, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." An investigation continued with respect to a possible charge of harassment, as defined by local law. Assange denied the charges, said he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women, and said along with his supporters that they were an attempt at character assassination and smear campaign. He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August, and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, re-opened the investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, a Swedish politician, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed. Assange has said that the accusation against him is a "set-up" arranged by the enemies of WikiLeaks.

Extradition

"Assange's lawyers have argued that the Swedish charges are politically motivated and the goal may be to get him to Sweden so that he can be extradited from there to the US."

My understanding is that this would be illegal: under international extradition treaties, someone extradited can be tried only on the specific charges for which extradition was granted. Any extension to other charges, whether in the same country or elsewhere, would require another extradition hearing in the original country. Peter Jackson 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, my understanding is that there are no 'specific charges'. They have not laid charges, just asked for extradition for questioning. His lawyers argued that that invalidated the extradition request, but the courts did not agree.

Anyway, he has been served with a notice for the extradition.[5] Sandy Harris 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which cannot be enforced without permission from Ecuador (unless we take the rather drastic step of breaking off diplomatic relations).

I've put in some info from the EU rules on arrest warrants. Peter Jackson 08:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Two articles in the New Statesman:

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case. Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions...

[6]

But another article has "The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism"[7]. Sandy Harris 01:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

question

I changed a bunch of inline references to populated {{cite}} templates. Many of them were in the middle of sentences, not at the end. Although that seems odd to me, I left them where they were. George Swan 00:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to put them next to what they refer to, so: One report (citation) claims that ...

Moving them to the end of the sentence would be fine with me, except in the very few cases where that would create ambiguity. Sandy Harris 05:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Enemy of the state?

"THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency." [8] Sandy Harris 05:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Suing Aussie PM Gilliard?

Assange seeking to sue Gillard for defamation. Apparently 'Ms Gillard condemned WikiLeaks's publication of classified information as "grossly irresponsible" and "illegal"' although "Australian Federal Police cleared the organisation of breaking any laws". Sandy Harris 02:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)