[QUOTE=ewmayer;531274]"The injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events."

How can such testimony be deemed "credible and reliable" in the utter absence of independently verifiable *evidence* supporting it? Similar with the tell-word "injured" - absent actual evidence, this is a mere *allegation* of injury in the legal sense. Promoting hearsay into evidence amounts throwing away pretty much the entire basis of post-medieval western jurisprudence.[/QUOTE]
"Hearsay" generally means someone talking about what they [i]heard[/i] someone else [i]say[/i]. The term "hearsay evidence" means "an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." Here in the good ol' USA, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, because the person actually making the statement isn't available for cross-examination. I confess I don't know Swedish rules of evidence, but I would be surprised if they didn't treat hearsay evidence similarly.

But in the case at hand, the claim of injury was firsthand, so is not "hearsay."

Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors deal with lying witnesses all the time, and get plenty of practice testing witnesses' credibility. I would assume that the assessment that the version of events was deemed "credible and reliable" because (1) every checkable fact asserted checked out, and (2) none of the ways they tried to shake the witness's cage made it rattle. Also, it isn't "testimony" because it wasn't given in court. I'm sure it was a sworn statement, though, subject to the penalties of perjury if found to be a deliberate falsification.

In the case at hand, if my understanding is correct, there was no dispute that Assange had sex with the complainants when they said he did. The only question at issue was whether one or more sexual encounters were consensual. Absent clear evidence of serious physical injury, or a weapon (knife, bludgeon etc) that's difficult to prove in court. The accused could say, for example, "She likes to play rough." It's "He said, she said." I'm not sure what the corroborating witnesses would be able to testify [i]to[/i] in this case. It's possible they might have been able to establish the fact that the complaining witness told them about it contemporaneously, if the person who told them had already testified to that fact. But apparently, after nine years and a lot of publicity, their testimony had become unreliable.

Chalk another one up for dilatory tactics. Assange had already succeeded in running out the clock on three of the allegations against him. He left Sweden one step ahead of the sheriff. He scuttled into the Ecuadorian Embassy when his final legal appeal against Sweden's extradition warrant to the UK was exhausted.

Assange was not subjected to anything "extralegal." He had many days in court, with the assistance of counsel, every step of the way. He chose not to appear in court when he had agreed to, because he didn't like the outcome.

If the extradition hearing goes against Assange, he will no doubt appeal, as he did with Sweden's extradition warrant. However, thanks to his blowing off a court appearance while making such a pest of himself with the Ecuadorians, this time around, he will not be afforded the opportunity to avoid his days in court. And if his final appeal is exhausted and the extradition is approved, he will become a guest of the US government, at least until he is tried.

I would also point out that, well into "post-medieval western jurisprudence," courts of law were known to take drastic measures against those refusing to accept the court's jurisdiction. As I may have mentioned before, under English common law, an accused person who refused to enter a plea ("stood mute") was subjected to the [i]peine forte et dure[/i], or slow pressing to death. Sounds about right for Assange in my book
:grin:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531286]...
was subjected to the [i]peine forte et dure[/i], or slow pressing to death. Sounds about right for Assange in my book[/QUOTE]One may or may not like Assange (he is no worse than a lot of public figures, IMHO opinion most of them have narcissistic traits, I don't need to give examples.) One difference is that Assange has no police, army of judicial system at his orders. Is that why he should be submitted to the [i]"peine forte et dure"[/i] ?

Or is it that in your opinion a publisher of material incriminating a country is to be put in prison when his personality doesn't suit you ? Or that the crimes denounced by whistle-blowers are insignificant compared to the crime of divulging that information ?

As for what happened in Sweden it has nothing to do with the current extradition request except that the judicial inquiry came at a good time to give the government of the USA time to construct their case.

Then the presence of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy was no insurmountable problem until a new president was elected in that country.

Sites like WikiLeaks are necessary because governments don't respect their own laws and even less international law. The USA is the perfect example : it bullies all countries to submit to its local laws concerning international boycotts, it imposes extradition of people that have committed no crime under their country laws, and, at the same time, refuses to comply with international law, it refuses that its employees (military, secret services...) be tried when they are accused even of war crimes or crime against humanity.

Jacob

Right on. Thank you, Jacob.

[quote=S485122;531308]One difference is that Assange has no police, army of judicial system at his orders. Is that why he should be submitted to the "[i]peine forte et dure[/i]"?[/quote]
Correction: [i]Il Duce[/i] doesn't have the police or judicial system "at his orders." The president can't dictate how courts rule or which cases they hear, and can't simply order the DOJ to begin investigations or file charges. He has tried that, though. His attempt to coerce a foreign government into conducting a criminal investigation of a domestic political opponent has led to changes in TV programming schedules.

While Assange was skulking in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he was working with the Russians to help get [i]Il Duce[/i] elected president. For that alone he deserves [i]peine forte et dure[/i]. But if it were possible to arrange matters so that he and [i]Il Duce[/i] wound up as cellmates, that would do.

I note that, WRT the election in Ecuador, Assange was banking on VP Lenín Moreno getting elected as Correa's successor. The other guy, Guillermo Lasso, seemed intent on evicting him from the embassy. When Moreno won, news outlets all over the world proclaimed Assange's asylum status was secure.

I happen to think (laughably vague allegations that the rape charges in Sweden were "trumped up" notwithstanding) that Assange is as guilty as sin of those charges.

[quote]Sites like WikiLeaks are necessary because governments don't respect their own laws and even less international law.[/quote]
Russia is on line two and China is on line three, insisting that they don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to bullying other countries.

They're also way ahead of the US in oppressing their own people. WikiLeaks recently got scooped by the New York Times with a bunch of leaked Chinese Communist Party documents about Gulag Xinjiang. Of course, China has a lot more control over the internet than the US, and Russia is rapidly catching up on that front...

We need the ability to learn what our governments are up to. I'm not sure "sites like WikiLeaks" are the right instrument or will be in five or ten years, but I'm pretty sure that, when it comes to who's [i]running[/i] the muckraker organization du jour, we can do better than Assange.

[quote]it imposes extradition of people that have committed no crime under their country laws[/quote]Whether Assange committed the crimes under US law he is charged with, is a question that falls under the jurisdiction of our courts. I don't recognize your authority to declare him innocent or grant him a pardon. If the UK rejects the extradition request (which it may), perhaps he would be tried [i]in absentia[/i]. Maybe a few Admin heads would explode. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure the original computer intrusion case was solid, and I'm a lot less sure about the slew of superseding espionage charges. I think the espionage charges are excessive, and legally on thin ice. The Admin way well come to rue the day they made the decision to go that route.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531317]If the UK rejects the extradition request (which it may), perhaps he would be tried [i]in absentia[/i].[/QUOTE]The US didn't make any UK friends in the extradition department with their recent decision concerning a woman who killed a motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road.

[QUOTE=xilman;531321]The US didn't make any UK friends in the extradition department with their recent decision concerning a woman who killed a motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road.[/QUOTE]Or with most other folks in the UK, from what I have read and heard. It seems a lot of people there are quite angry about it. And rightly so, IMO.

But do you really think that could influence the outcome of Assange's extradition hearing? If so, how?

@DrS: You are correct re. hearsay, I somehow conflated that with "he said, she said" in my post, i.e. with "allegation".

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531317]While Assange was skulking in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he was working with the Russians to help get Il Duce elected president.[/QUOTE]
And the evidence for this is? This is the hack-or-leak debate re. the DNC servers. Simply because a bunch of folks from US-spookdom "are of the opinion that" doesn't make it true, except in the minds of the Clintonite and #NeverTrump true believers desperate to blame HRH HRC's election loss on factors other than the obvious "she was the establishment's corrupt insider candidate selected in a rigged primary process, and assumed the presidency was hers, so blew off campaigning in many key battleground states, especially in the rust belt" ones. And furthermore, the whole "Assange colluded with EvilPutin!" red herring is in no small part designed to distract from the fact that the Wikileaks materials revealed [b]factual information about election rigging[/b], in this case about the aforementioned rigging of the party nomination process. AFAIK their veracity was never seriously disputed. So please tell us, why should factual evidence of such election rigging by corrupt insiders be kept from the American people? Simply because it might benefit a candidate you dislike?

[quote]I happen to think (laughably vague allegations that the rape charges in Sweden were "trumped up" notwithstanding) that Assange is as guilty as sin of those charges.[/QUOTE]
What you happen to think is utterly immaterial - it's what can be proven in a court of law. But your imperial-thug mindset comes through quite clearly in your posts - it seems you just don't like ugly and illegal U.S. government tactics w.r.to international law when Trump uses them.

Dr S:[QUOTE]Russia is on line two and China is on line three, insisting that they don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to bullying other countries.[/QUOTE]That other nations do the same bestows no plenary indulgence on what our government does. There are sorces available which detail US actions regarding other nations. Note that these are Military Interventions. Diplomatic and Economic Interventions are different topics.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States[/URL]

[quote=ewmayer;531346]What you happen to think is utterly immaterial - it's what can be proven in a court of law.[/quote]Just as [i]your[/i] unevidenced opinion that the Swedish charges against Assange were "trumped up" is utterly immaterial.

IMO you have to be hopelessly ideologically blinkered to claim there's no evidence that Assange received from Russian hackers large quantities of material stolen from DNC servers while he was [strike]running[/strike] staying at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Oh, wait, the Ecuadorians hired a bunch of spooks to monitor the place, so [i]all[/i] the evidence of what happened there during Assange's stay can simply be dismissed out of hand...

RT was even making programs from there. It also seems the Russians worked on a plan to extract him from the embassy and spirit him off to Russia. Of course, they would only consider such a thing for altruistic reasons. They eventually abandoned the idea as too risky, though.

The more I read about his stay there, the more I am amazed by the fact that they didn't chuck him out a lot sooner.

[quote]But your imperial-thug mindset comes through quite clearly in your posts[/quote]
Oooh! Better send the Thought Police to take me to the Ministry of Love!

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;531366]
IMO you have to be hopelessly ideologically blinkered to claim there's no evidence that Assange received from Russian hackers large quantities of material stolen from DNC servers[/QUOTE]

So what if he did? Are you claiming the U.S. government has the right to press charges against foreign citizens for such behavior?

[QUOTE=Prime95;531392]So what if he did? Are you claiming the U.S. government has the right to press charges against foreign citizens for such behavior?[/QUOTE]Yes, in exactly the same way that the UK has the right to press charges against Americans suspected of causing death while driving.

That's what extradition treaties are for.