Revision as of 06:29, 24 April 2023 editRenamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 (talk | contribs)6,278 edits →Recent edits: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,829,218 editsm →top: blp=yes has priority over blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
(17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Old |
{{Old XfD multi|date=3 March 2011 (UTC)|result='''no consensus'''|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange}} | ||
{{Old |
{{Old XfD multi|date=12 March 2011 (UTC)|result='''speedy keep - withdrawn'''|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell| blp=yes|class=C|listas=Assange, Julian, Swedish Judicial Authority V|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography}} | ||
{{WikiProject International relations |
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=low|law=yes|law-importance=low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Gender |
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Law |
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Ecuador |
{{WikiProject Ecuador|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Sweden |
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} | ||
}} | |||
| blpo=yes | |||
| blp=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ |
{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months}} | ||
== Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ? == | |||
‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’ | |||
‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’ | |||
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Assange arrested in Sweden? == | == Assange arrested in Sweden? == | ||
Line 29: | Line 36: | ||
The referenced link is dead. | The referenced link is dead. | ||
So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not? | So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not? | ||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
== Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant. == | == Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant. == | ||
Line 55: | Line 64: | ||
<P> I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process. | <P> I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process. | ||
:None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== "No one disagrees" == | |||
When the the initiators of the open letter welcomed Melzer's clarification, presumably they were responding to both parts of Melzer's statement, i.e. the part about brave victims as well as the part about insufficient evidence. ] (]) 10:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Not minor edit == | |||
:I think the brave victims part is something everyone agrees with and is obvious, Id say they were responding to the part about Melzer sharing their legal opinions ] (]) 10:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Any response? I still think its about Melzer sharing their legal opinions ] (]) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry ] (]) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== What happened? == | |||
== BLP: Charges vs allegations == | |||
I was replying to a comment about Kate Harding's article in Salon and the comment disappeared. Here is what I was going to say: | |||
: You introduced an article which you used to provide Kate Harding's opinion about an article in CounterPunch. I then used the same article to provide another of Harding's opinions. She does not shy away from that opinion by the end of her article. Her point was that, the timing of the charges was suspicious but that there was no public evidence of a relation between the charges and Wikileaks publications. She criticised her fellow journalists for jumping to conclusions without evidence. I have now included both parts of her opinion. Btw, I can't see why you described the Shamir CounterPunch article as retracted. ] (]) 15:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
The wording in this article stated that there were legal ]s against Assange; this was a ] violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".) | |||
:{{tq|Her point was that, the timing of the charges was suspicious}} thats not support for the conspiracy theory or the claims made. the section isnt about Assange and his lawyer saying "this is suspcious" they went a lot further | |||
:{{tq|Btw, I can't see why you described the Shamir CounterPunch article as retracted.}} it looks like counterpunch deleted it which was how wikipedia defined retracted ] (]) 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I didn't write that she supported the idea of a connection. You could describe her as agnostic. I used her exact words. It is a quote that is directly relevant to the title you chose for this section. | |||
:: The "retraction" point is minor. Do you have a source which says the article was deleted? ] (]) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tq|It is a quote that is directly relevant to the title you chose for this section.}} but not the content, but your second edit was better, which is why i deleted my comment | |||
:::{{tq|Do you have a source which says the article was deleted?}} its skyblue and not worth arguing ] (]) 14:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
I have {{diff|Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority|1230902978|1227753085|corrected these BLP violations}}. | |||
== Recent edits == | |||
I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed. | |||
@] Thanks for improving my recent edits. I think youre still editing, and so far I agree with them except for the Sexual abuse category being {{tq|Controversial given the investigation was dropped}} but I understand and unless consensus says its not controversial it is now i guess. I did see a category for sexual abuse cases that wasnt convictions or people charged, which he wasnt because they couldnt get to him. I was trying to add a category for the kind of case or investigation | |||
I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the ''United Nations finding'' section on ]. In this case, e.g. {{tq|The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily}} it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the ] can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. ] (]) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
The reason I took out inconsistent from {{tq|Assange's supporters have accused the CPS of being inconsistent in its description of the status of the case.}} was I didnt see that in the the source, but might have missed it. So I showed the difference instead. If you saw where the source said supporters said it was inconsistent thats ok, thanks for finding it ] (]) 16:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:* Regarding "inconsistent", the Guardian source says "Assange’s supporters allege that the CPS has been inconsistent in declaring whether or not the case was live". | |||
:* Regarding the Sexual Abuse category, the category says "Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is a general term used defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another". We can't make any judgements about what happened as the case was dropped. It may be appropriate to include this page in a category about Sexual abuse cases that did not proceed, or even just criminal cases that were dropped, if such categories exist. ] (]) 06:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:*:1 Thanks | |||
:*:2 Disagree but wont argue | |||
:*:{{tq|I did see a category for sexual abuse cases}} shouldve been {{tq| I didnt see}} ] (]) 06:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep - withdrawn. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives | |||
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ?
‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’
‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.91 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Assange arrested in Sweden?
I removed the following
- Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.
If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later. The referenced link is dead. So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?
References
- Cite error: The named reference
Swedish Prosecution Authority
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant.
"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times)
One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian.
"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"
There was a blase response from Sweden
"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined."
Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)
Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.
Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act
Lets look at a hypothetical situation.
The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation.
Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.
Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.
Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.
Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.
Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.
Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.
Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.
Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.
Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law.
I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.
- None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.125.155 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Not minor edit
My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry Softlem (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
BLP: Charges vs allegations
The wording in this article stated that there were legal (criminal) charges against Assange; this was a WP:BLP violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)
I have corrected these BLP violations.
I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.
I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the United Nations finding section on arbitrary detention. In this case, e.g. The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily
it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the crime of aggression can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. Boud (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- C-Class International law articles
- Low-importance International law articles
- WikiProject International law articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Ecuador articles
- Low-importance Ecuador articles
- C-Class Sweden articles
- Mid-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles