Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Always Ugly Beacon Hill Branch… | Happy Presidents Day! »

Monday, February 18, 2013

Politics / Teh Internets / International Julian Assange Runs for Senate to Avoid Prosecution

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Mr. Wikileaks announced from the Ecuadorian embassy in London—where he's still holed up to avoid extradition—that he will run for a seat in the Australian senate, both to push his agenda of government transparency and "as a defence against potential criminal prosecution in the United States and Britain."

The US has a long and distinguished history of federal politicians getting themselves convicted, but I can't think of one who ran for office to avoid conviction.

Regardless, an Assange campaign has some obvious advantages. He has serious name recognition, a clear and unambiguous platform, a proven record of taking principled stands, a flair for showmanship—and, best of all for a campaign manager, the sex scandal is already out there. It's been digested and (mostly) forgotten by the body politic.

The best defense against a smear campaign is having nothing left to hide.

FacebookShare

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Hey you know what would be awesome? If you'd call it a rape accusation scandal instead of a "sex scandal." The man is accused of rape.

Posted by planned barrenhood on February 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM

@1, and the "victim" has since recanted her claims. But hey..who cares, right?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on February 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM

he's such a smarmy douche. like bill maher on steroids.

Posted by tainte on February 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Here's one of Assange's longtime, dedicated and thoughtful supporters Jemima Khan on her recent shift in thinking on the extradition question.

It may well be that the serious allegations of sexual assault and rape are not substantiated in court, but I have come to the conclusion that these are all matters for Swedish due process and that Assange is undermining both himself and his own transparency agenda – as well as doing the US department of justice a favour – by making his refusal to answer questions in Sweden into a human rights issue. There have been three rounds in the UK courts and the UK courts have upheld the European Arrest Warrant in his name three times. The women in question have human rights, too, and need resolution. Assange’s noble cause and his wish to avoid a US court does not trump their right to be heard in a Swedish court.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemi…

Posted by gloomy gus on February 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM

@4 This is very easy to resolve. All Britain and Sweden have to do is put in writing that they will not extradite Assange to the U.S. They refuse to do so.

Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army on February 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM

As I understand it Assange has not been formally charged with any offense. Sweden is looking to extradite him for questioning. The results of that questioning could result in either him being charged or the charges dropped.

Interestingly: "Ecuador offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to question Assange at the Embassy in London, but this was turned down by the Swedish prosecutors". (Wikipedia).

Seems like the Swedish prosecutors aren't really interested in pursuing the case....I mean, airfares from Sweden to UK and London accommodation aren't that expensive...

Posted by Aaaarrrggh on February 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM

@5 and @6, David Allen Green has numbered those points 3 ND 4 among those describes as the most commonly reasserted though disproven "zombie facts" on this matter:

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”:
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”: This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-…

Posted by gloomy gus on February 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

@7 So basically they don't want to, therefore it's impossible.

Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army on February 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM

@7 I seem to remember one of the girls said all they wanted was him to get tested and when Assange offered up some DNA Sweden pressed harder for an arrest. From the way I am to understand the legal system in Sweden prosecutors have the ability to request an arrest even after a witness withdraws their complaint, while in America and most of the free world the bar is a judge for these kinds of warrants. Sweden is requesting to remove from the UK a person who was accused of rape which in Sweden can be consensual sex without a condom on. I've never attempted to deny his guilt however, when was the last time a prosecutor used this power to take people from other countries based on witness testimony of rape that was later recanted? Prosecutors barely use this authority for people who are more likely to be guilty of rape and now in this case of he said she said the first action is that presence in the country of guilt becomes a necessity?

Imagine if something like this were to happen in the US, just for funzies. Girl goes to police office, explains that a celebrity like figure had sex with her without a condom on and that he's flown to the UK to avoid charges. Prosecutors don't have the authority to arrest the accused rapist in this scenario, they go to the judge and make the request who then looks at the letter of the law about the authority he has to request the person in question. In many states I'm not sure that would really be rape, and a judge wouldn't really be given the authority to remove someone from another country. Even if they would I doubt the case wouldn't be heard by phone, which Sweden claims wouldn't be possible. Assange's case is an insult to every rape survivor who never got their day in court as I know of no other rape case where so much effort was put into tracking down and arresting the accused. If every rape case was given the amount of time and effort put into getting Assange it wouldn't seem so odd to want him. He made himself into a larger than life figure in the wikileaks movement, he did this to himself, and many activists in his community won't forgive him just for that. I wish him luck but he's on his own as far as I'm concerned, but he's being treated special, that's for damn sure.

More...

Posted by watchout5