No, it isn't. Go read:Originally Posted by paully
"The framework decision defines "European arrest warrant" as any judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest or surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of:
The warrant applies in the following cases:
- conducting a criminal prosecution;
- executing a custodial sentence;
- executing a detention order.
If they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the following offences, among others, may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act: terrorism, trafficking in human beings, corruption, participation in a criminal organisation, counterfeiting currency, murder, racism and xenophobia, rape, trafficking in stolen vehicles, and fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the Communities."
- where a final sentence of imprisonment or a detention order has been imposed for a period of at least four months;
- for offences punishable by imprisonment or a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year.
See: European arrest warrant
Don't be an idiot all your life. Try to understand, not just google.
Are you attempting to say that Assange should not have had a European Arrest Warrant issued against him? If so, why, pray, did the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - which knows a thing or two about the law - recently rule against Assange and decide that he could be extradited, thus provoking his flight to the Ecuadorian Embassy? if the EAW was not a proper legal procedure, Assange would have been a free man in the UK months ago, wouldn't he.
Actually can you read?
Did you even notice this word in your own googled quote list of offences to which an EAW can apply:
You dunderhead!
Er, is not rape what Assange is accused of doing in Sweden? I'm not saying he did it, merely that he is suspected of it by the Swedish prosecutors.
EAWs do cover those suspected of serious crimes in another member state country - as applies to Assange. Arrest warrants are generally issued against suspects.
What about this do you find so difficult? Serious question.
A link for you about the Supreme Court decision:
"Two weeks ago the court rejected his argument that a European arrest warrant for extradition was invalid."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18446295
Last edited by paully; 27th June 2012 at 21:29.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is! You may not agree it was rape - certainly Assange doesn't, but that is the principal allegation.
.........Aren't the actions of that Swedish lady prosecutor just a little on the edge paully?
Has she not broken some established protocols?
That's a concern I have.
I'm not following the jurisdictional arguments as closely as I could..............
I generally agree with your arguments..
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
―
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You had better have a big cry to the mods again
She might have broken some guidelines russ, but that's different to breaking the law.
...I believe that was Nixon's defense...
...majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd...
When the Swedish prosecutor does it, it's not breaking the law.
Anyone who has had any real experience with Scandinavia knows they are corrupt as fuck. How they got the reputation as the least corrupt part of the world will forever escape me.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks