There isn't. There are, however, conditions under which we could refuse such a request - that's why in the Assange case it went all the way to the Crown Court before it was approved.

There are also no countries that are exempted as you suggested in your post.

There are moves to review the system as some countries are using it for relatively trivial offences which it was never intended to cover. It's far from perfect but our police forces claim it's been of great assistance to them.

That decision was appealed and after due process was reversed. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in both Sweden and the UK.


He opted out of a valid legal procedure when he skipped bail. And if you honestly think that Ecuador gives a fig about his human rights, freedom of speech, of freedom from persecution then you clearly haven't been following what they've been up to in their own country.

In any event, it's hardly a valid legal manoeuvre to apply for political asylum when you have not been subjected to political persecution, nor have been charged with a political crime, nor even be under direct threat of either.


I wouldn't be comfortable having carried out the acts that his own defence lawyer says he has. And if he's that 'uncomfortable' with the idea of travelling to Sweden, why did he apply to live there permanently?

Indeed. Mrs 28 worked with the team that did these in Yorkshire and a number of offenders were returned here because of the EAW

Being legal, does not mean being right.

I don’t think anyone at all has argued about the legality of the action so im not sure why it is being brought up?

That decision went through due process and asylum was granted. You can make all the claims of ulterior motives that you like, but the fact remains that a valid legal procedure was followed in Ecuadaor, Sweden and the UK. If you think Sweden is an unimpeachable bastion of democratic process and a shining light of jurisprudence you clearly havent been following what they have been up to in their country.

An independent democratic nation has decided, at the very highest levels that he is being persecuted, It is a valid legal option, and is in fact the only option he would have if the accusations are false and the prosecution vexatious.
That’s another straw man. I can only ask you the question again would you be comfortable submitting yourself to this procedure. Would you be comfortable leaving your job, and home and life, to face accusations, that haven’t even been proved on a prima facie basis, which you believe you are innocent of, and you believe are vexatious, and travel to a country complicit in torture and rendition for an ally, the same ally which has held your source for 800 days without trial?

And you are comfortable with this?

What job, home and life does he have in the UK/Ecuador at present?

And that argument just boils down to he shouldn't have to go if he doesn't want to, which is a ridiculous way to run a criminal justice system.

Well his job is running his website. His life is the things he does, and I don’t know what his address was.

I don’t see what is ridiculous about not forcing an innocent man, who hasn’t had even a prima facie case put against him, to have his live disrupted and forced to travel t a country he doesn’t want to go to.

It would be entirely correct for the onus to be on the Swedish prosecutors to prove there was a case to be answered prior to forcing him to do anything

There is a case to be answered, 2 women have accused him of rape and other sexual crimes. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, that will be decided at any potential trial, but unless you think rape allegations shouldn't be investigated then there is most certainly a case to be answered. At the moment Assange refuses to answer it, and has broken the law to try and avoid answering that case.

Just because he doesn't want to go doesnt mean he shouldn't be extradited. And the political asylum is a ludicrous decision that interferes in the criminal justice system of this country.

The intimation is that this is a purely political prosecution. My point is that if so, just about every layer of the Swedish justice system is apparently complicit.


How droll. Did you have a point you wanted to make?


Did you read the justification for the decision? They have NOT decided that he is being persecuted. They have decided that he [imight[/i be persecuted IF Sweden chose to expedite him to the USA. The basis of the asylum offer is that Sweden could not give them a categorical guarantee that they would not expedite him to the USA. A guarantee that it is impossible for ANY democratic government to provide.

Oh - and there are a number of experts on international law who question whether it was, in fact, a valid request.


The problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.

A country he once lived in and in fact applied to have permanent residence in, on the grounds that he felt safe from persecution there. I wonder what's changed...

No we have a long standing tradition and a right one in my opinion of the presumption of innocence. It is in fact the accusation which is irrelevant, and limiting of an individuals freedom, is (or at least the that’s the image which we like to project) based on the evidence presented. Right now, no evidence has been presented. There is nothing to actually prove that this accusation has any merit. The absence of a prima facie judgement means that the Swedish prosecutors haven’t proved that there is a case to answer. The presumption of innocence demands that until such a time as a case to answer has been proved, it is wrong for us to infringe or limit a persons freedom or liberty.

Political asylum doesn’t interfere with the judicial system, it is part of the judicial system. It is part of the checks and balances which protects people from a governments nefarious actions.

Turn it round, would you argue that someone granted political asylum in by the British Government, in a British embassy, should be extradited to Ecuador to face charges they, and the British Government suspect to be politically motivated where the prosecutors refused to interview them in the embassy, but demanded extradition without providing evidence there was a case to answer?

I once live in Australia, I wouldn’t travel back there to answer questions. I have a life to be getting on with.

You seem to find this very unlikely, yet seem perfectly happy to believe a narrative that states the president of an independent democratically elected country has sparked a diplomatic crisis in a situation they had no prior involvement in, just to play silly buggers. And every level of the Ecuadorian foreign office is complicit.
Just wanted to highlight the double standards you were applying to the trustworthy ol’ Swedes (who were complicit in the secret rendition and torture of two men, with the US. The same US which has held Mr Assange’s source for 800 days without trial) and those dodgy South Americans

It’s a distinction without a difference. The country which facilitates persecution is no better than the country which persecutes.
And similarly they are a number who don’t.

A sovereign, independent, democratically elected country has granted him political asylum. If we ever, ever, want others to respect a British decision to grant political asylum, then we should probably respect other nations when they do it.



Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Aye, the presumption of innocence is a novel concept to some. But western jurisprudence has been based on it for about 1400 years and its served us pretty well up to now

Right, I give up. Life's too short. Nope, you're right Smokey. The legal system should demand someone is prosecuted, tried and convicted BEFORE they can be arrested. Political asylum to non-politically threatened people fleeing the justice system doesn't interfere with the justice system. Ecuador is Sweden. Black is white. White is black.

Or conversely, I can go to Sweden, say you raped me, then you can leave your job, family, home, responsibilities and spend months of your life trying to prove a negative. Good plan, seems fair.

I find all conspiracy theories unlikely by default. And I haven't at any point suggested that the Ecuadorian government has just decided to play 'silly buggers'. There are a number of perfectly good political reasons for Ecuador to have acted as they have - none of which involve the relative merits of the actual case. The clots in charge of our own government didn't exactly help with their ill-judged sabre-rattling.


The only person to even raise the alleged untrustworthiness of 'dodgy South Americans' is you. I am aware of the previous incidents involving the Swedes that you refer to, and it is highly unlikely that they would be able to get away with anything like the same again - even if they wanted to - given the high profile of the Assange case.


It's a distinction which Ecuador itself has made. The request for Sweden to promise to override it's own laws and judicial system was simply smoke and mirrors - no democracy could have agreed to that request.


Which would indicate that it's not quite as clear-cut as you claim, no?


We have a legal duty to comply with the EAW which was legally presented to us and tested at every level of our judicial system. Moreover, Assange has now committed a crime right here in the UK. Are you suggesting that we simply ignore our treaty obligation with the EU and also our own laws?


If you can indicate where a presumption of guilt has been made then you might have a point. Good luck with that.

Straw man.

If I'd been in the same hotel room in Sweden at the same time as you then you might have a case, particularly if someone else says I committed similar crimes against them.

A very simple question for you - do you think rape allegations should be fully investigated?

The Ecuadorians making their decision on a political basis and not on the actual merits of case is perfectly reasonable, the swedes making their decision on a political basis and not on the actual merits of the case, conspiracy theory and unlikely by default. Seems like a double standard to me.

Would you trust your life on this 'unlikeliness' of this happening? again? Bradley Manning is still in jail, now, without trial. The hundreds held in Guantanamo bay for years without trial, many for years. The US has proven itself not to follow due process, not to give people a fair and speedy trial. Ecuador felt that Sweden couldnt guarantee, through itself and third parties to which it would give custody of Mr Assange, a fair and speedy trial, due process, and protection from torture and the death penalty from political persecution. Sweden has already failed to give that protection to other people. Regardless of whatever you want to dismiss as 'conspiracy theories' it doesnt alter the fact that a person was claiming asylum from Ecuador, and Ecuador as a free, democratic nation, decided that that person faced the possibility of persecution from a country which has a history of denying justice to the accused, via a third party which has history of being complicit in the torture and rendition of people found guilty of no crime. Seems a fairly noble intention to me.
A democracy could have very easily agreed to that request. There is nothing to stop Sweden asking the questions they need to ask in the Ecuadorian embassy. There is no reason the Swedes cannot say you will stand trial for the crimes which you have been accused in this country (if it ever gets that far), whilst that trial is ongoing we will not consider any request for extradition, there is provision within most extradition treaties for such a situaiton. They are a free and democratic nation capable of making their own decisions.

It doesnt matter what i think, or what you think, or realistically what the British government think. It matters what the Ecuadorian government thinks as asylum has been requested there. If we want countries to respect the decisions we make in these matters, we must respect the decisions made by other countries.

Im suggesting it is wrong and immoral for us, as a nation, to extradite anyone, where a prima facie case cannot be presented, and that if we have no movement within our current laws, then our current laws are wrong and as a free democratic nation we should remove them. And also that it is a good thing, something we should respect, that the world has a process where asylum can be granted to someone who is in danger of being punished by a wrong and immoral law. Like someone being forcibly extradited with no prima facie evidence, or maybe a Saudi Woman facing 6 months in prison and 200 lashes for being raped, or many other of the wrong and immoral laws which sadly exist in this world.

you said [iThe problem with this question is that it presupposes that Assange's version of events is the truth.[/i presuming Assanges version of events is wrong is a presumption of guilt. [ithe burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies[/i. It is up to the Swedish Authorities to prove that there is a case against Assange before they can punish him. Extradition and detention is quite obviously a punishment.

So all the evidence i would need for you to accept their is case for you to answer, in a court of law, in a different country, for rape, is that we were in the same room? and somebody else i knew levelled similar accusations but only after cooking you breakfast, bragging about it on twitter, and then met me to discuss it?
Yes, within the confines of due process, a fair and speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. I

No because it's not about me accepting it, of course I'd not accept because I'd know I hadnt raped you. That's like saying anyone who is ever arrested shouldn't be if they don't want to be.

The entire process including the extradition and arrest warrant has been in accordance with due process. Nobody has said he is guilty, he is presumed innocent, and I'd be happy I'd receive a fair trial in Sweden.

No it isnt.

except it hasnt, because nobody has proven any case yet, even that there is any reasonable case at first glance, yet we are talking about extraditing and detaining an innocent person. Now i dont know about you, but if I was forcibly extradited and detained, i would feel like i had been punished.

Yes it is. You are saying he shouldn't be arrested because he doesn't want to be.

How is that any different to being arrested prior to trial anywhere in the world? Once again, you are saying that people can only be arrested after the case against them has been proven. The only way to prove a case is with a trial. So are you saying that the trial should take place before he is arrested?