So Let Me Get This Straight !!! - Re: Julian Assange

[TorchTheWitch]

65. If LA wants to interrogate a suspect they extradite him from NY

and take him into the LA precinct. Actually, it would be the state of California that would extradite from the state of NY. That's how it's always done. Why in the world would it be done otherwise? California has no jurisdiction in NY, so how can they possibly go into NY's jurisdiction and interrogate a suspect without NY's permission, guidance and outside NY laws? They must obtain formal written permission in the form of an extradition warrant agreed to by NY for the suspect to be sent to LA for interrogation. LA would most certainly not go into NY and attempt to interrogate them there and then perhaps arrest them and bring them back to LA. Sorry, but that's not legal procedure and not how it's ever done.

This interview Sweden wants with Assange is a mandatory procedural matter required by law before charges can be filed and the suspect to be charged and arrested. It isn't a "hey, we want to ask you some questions about this" kind of interview. In the interview the investigated evidence must be made available to the suspect, and the suspect is given the opportunity at that time to refute it as well as name witnesses on their behalf. It's a much more fair procedure than we have where charges are filed and the suspect arrested and given no opportunity to see what the evidence against them is nor given the opportunity to provide any evidence of their own that could at that time prove their innocence sufficiently so that the case could be dismissed. Instead, in the US the suspect is either allowed out on bail with conditions and a hefty load of money handed over or made to sit in prison until they finally get the opportunity to refute the charges which doesn't happen until trial, which can be for a very long time.

British detectives would extradite a suspect from Antigua or Australia if they had sufficient evidence that warranted extradition. However, Britain does not have the formal interview process that Sweden does in which the suspect is required to undergo a face to face formal interview in which the suspect must be presented with the evidence of the investigation, given the opportunity to refute the evidence, name witnesses on their behalf, etc. before a final decision can be made as to whether or not charges can be levied and an arrest made. British detectives have no jurisdiction in any country outside Britain and cannot then go to any country and interrogate a suspect according to British law while under the laws, without the permission of, and not under the strict guidance of that other country. This is what extradition is FOR whether it is extradition from another country, another state or another county.

You seem to be under the impression that the interview for which Assange has been lawfully extradited from Britain to Sweden is just some little "hey, we just want to ask you some questions" type of interview. I honestly have no idea how anyone paying attention to this case could possibly have missed that the interview is not that at all particularly after all this time unless they were willfully refusing to acknowledge that information. Again, it is a mandatory procedural interview at the end of the investigation for the purpose of giving the investigative findings to the accused, allowing them the opportunity to refute, etc., etc. before any final decision on whether or not charges are warranted can be made and either the case dropped or charges levied and an arrest made. It cannot be done over the phone or in any other jurisdiction other than Sweden because Sweden HAS no jurisdiction outside of Sweden to conduct criminal proceedings under Swedish law anywhere but in Sweden, and if the decision to arrest is made following that interview, obviously that arrest should be in Sweden since Sweden has no authority outside of Sweden to arrest anyone under Swedish law.

Do you seriously not understand the concept of jurisdiction nor the purpose of extradition?

As for your ps "what is Assange's guilty secret", I have absolutely no flippin' idea what on earth you're talking about. Kindly elaborate.