Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts News

Julian Assange To Be Extradited To Sweden 530

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-it's-so-cold dept.
An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost his challenge against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault. The 39-year-old Australian computer expert, who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website, is wanted in relation to claims made by two WikiLeaks volunteers last August."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Julian Assange To Be Extradited To Sweden

Comments Filter:
  • by bbqsrc (1441981) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:50AM (#35299052) Homepage
    It can and will likely be appealed, leading it to drag out for much longer so the US finally has time to enact the SHIELD bill and have him extradited from Sweden. And the soap opera continues.
    • by JBMcB (73720)

      You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.

      • by bbqsrc (1441981)
        I am aware of this, but it seems unlikely that they'd do it now due to the fact there's already extradition proceedings to Sweden.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The UK does not extradite if they believe the person may be executed.
        This is what Assange is fighting for, claiming that Sweden will extradite him to the us, where he will be executed. Therefore by proxy, The UK has gone against their policy.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Extradition is so 20th century. Nowadays we send people on private vacations to Egypt with all expenses paid. Including burial.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by inpher (1788434)
          Nor does Sweden [sweden.gov.se]:

          Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.[...]

          Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of be

          • Nor does Sweden [sweden.gov.se]:

            Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.[...]

            Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.[...]

            Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

            Yeah, that's smart. Looking at what they say and not what they do.

            http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition [hrw.org]

      • Re:Appeal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rainmouse (1784278) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:15AM (#35299320)

        You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.

        After the fiasco of the Enron three being extradited to Texas and charged for crimes done in the UK against a UK bank then sentenced to jail over something that isn't even a crime in the UK, it is not likely to happen again. It is also worth noting that it is a staggeringly unfair, one-way extradition policy set up by a previous government and is likely to be repealed if challenged, especially in another political farce, double-dipped with political corruption like this whole Assange business is.

  • Appeal (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrL0G1C (867445) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:50AM (#35299054) Journal

    He's not lost yet, he will be appealing against extradition.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865 [bbc.co.uk]

    • The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:06AM (#35299208)

      Won't matter. This whole play was written before he even met those women in Sweden.

      • by dave420 (699308) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:07AM (#35299222)
        [citation needed]
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sechr Nibw (1278786)
          [BSG] This has all happened before, and will all happen again...
        • Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)

          by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:26AM (#35299434)

          In 50 years, when all the documents are declassified showing the scummy shit going on behind the scenes on this, I'll be sure and send them along.

          But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world. You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other. You keep believing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg isn't a plant who's part of a larger effort to discredit Assange by any means necessary, or that these bullshit charges aren't a part of that effort either. You keep believing that some of us didn't see this discrediting campaign coming [slashdot.org] even as Assange was stepping off that plane in Sweden.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            No, it wasn't a chance. Fame tends to both make people stupid and attract parasitic people. Assange got a lot of fame, very quick, and it's both made him stupid and the target of opportunists. I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they? The best way they can discredit wikileaks is by letting Assange continue to self-destruct.

            I support the concept of wikileaks. I hope they survive their arrogant twit of a spokesman.

          • But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world.

            Turned into a rapist? Nah. Felt very good about the things he had accomplished, thus getting a booster shot to his ego? Sure. A booster shot that coupled with a semi-infamous reputation which more and more people were starting to hear about in order to make it easier for him to get laid? Twice? Sure, sounds feasible.

            You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other.

            Random chance? Nah. The fact that his name was starting to take on a bit of a celebrity appeal, the same type of celebrity appeal that convinces sexually insecure women to fuck total douchebag

      • Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:28AM (#35299454) Homepage Journal

        So those women are guilty until proven innocent? Assange is innocent until proven guilty at least under US law but this seems like mindless hero worship at this point.

        • Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Insightful)

          by horza (87255) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:45AM (#35299718) Homepage

          That doesn't even make sense. The women are accusing him of rape and so far there is zero evidence apart from their word. Of course he is innocent until proven guilty. The women have a well publicised catalogue of making charges, dropping charges, changing charges, spending the days after the alleged 'rape' with the accusers still Twittering about how happy they were to be with him, etc. To an outsider, it sounds like the women are pawns being used by a corrupt Swedish judicary (with police leaking the case to the press plus the Prime Minister trying incite hate against a victim that hasn't even gone to trial yet) on the behest of the US.

          Hardly mindless hero worship when backed by a long trail of evidence, albeit some circumstantial, and incredible 'coincidences'.

          Phillip.

          • Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Insightful)

            by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:13AM (#35300078) Homepage Journal

            And that is why there will be a trial.
            Really if a woman accused you of rape do you not think that you would be arrested and investigated? Do you not think that if you left the country you would have a warrant issued for your arrest? If Assange was Glen Beck would you say the same thing?

            • If suddenly two black left wing women who know each other had sex with Glen Beck and then came up with a TECHINICAL rape charge, I would be highly suspicious as well. Lets not forget that this is NOT the kind of rape most of the world would regonize. They did NOT say no to sex, they said no to unprotected sex, then had sex with a condom of their OWN free will, then cried rape when the condom broke. Come on, in most of the world the police would ignore this AND that is what happened until an investigator wit

            • Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Informative)

              by Minix (15971) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:42AM (#35300450)
              The trial can be held in camera in Sweden, the court can decide to publish nothing but the judgement (none of the evidence) and the UK judge deciding upon extradition is ok with that, citing that trials involving juveniles can be embargoed in the UK, and the Swedes just have a different idea of what needs to be made public.

              So: that there will be a Swedish trial doesn't mean justice will be seen to be done.
        • Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Informative)

          by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:05AM (#35299978) Journal

          If the US gov't declares him an enemy combatant, or terrorist, they can detain him indefinitely without ever charging him with anything, essentially giving him a death sentence in prison (since living in gitmo isn't known for it's long survival rates).

          So while that's true if he's under US law, don't think for even an 1/8th of a second that this would run through traditional US courts. This has been made impossible to challenge basically because of how they've set up enemy combatant/terrorist.

          Also, this isn't even a criminal punishment in sweden with 1yr of jailtime, which is a requirement of extradition.

  • by DuncanE (35734) * on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:51AM (#35299066) Homepage

    "Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables."

    I never got that. He's in England and he's from Australia. Surely these are the 2 biggest allies of the US.

    • by Duncan J Murray (1678632) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:57AM (#35299108) Homepage

      I also wondered about this - maybe its something to do with the informal arrangement between the US and Sweden that he leaked before.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html [telegraph.co.uk]

      (sorry for linking to telegraph - came up first on google and I'm lazy!)

      D

    • by pr0nbot (313417)

      I don't know whether the death penalty would be on the table for whatever crimes the US believes him to have committed, but that could block his extradition from the UK at least.

      Wikipedia says: "Many countries and areas, such as Canada, Macao,[1] Mexico, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human

      • by Americano (920576) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:08AM (#35299244)

        In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant [europa.eu] acts).

        If the UK wouldn't extradite him to the US directly, there's really no reason to believe that Sweden would somehow have the power to do anything, since the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.

        • by digitig (1056110) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:43AM (#35299688)

          In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't legally turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant [europa.eu] acts).

          FTFY. If Sweden puts him on a flight to the USA then it wouldn't do a whole lot of good if the UK complained about it -- which on current showing they'd be unlikely to do anyway.

        • by Joce640k (829181)

          ... the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.

          Yeah, right, like any part of this farce has followed the laws/rules so far....

          eg. An Interpol arrest warrant issued for a crime that was only committed in one country and has a maximum $700 fine...? Uhuh.

    • Yeah, it's likely easier to extract him from the UK. We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case. The U.S. could have Asange if they'd just find something to charge him with. We in the UK are very helpful in that regard.

    • by AccUser (191555)

      IANAL, but I think that the extradition from UK to Sweden does not automatically give Sweden the right to permit an extradition to US.

      • by mckinnsb (984522)
        It doesn't, but Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States (as does the UK), and all the United States would have to do would be to convict Assange of a crime in order to ask for those treaties to be acted upon. It is, however, up to Sweden to either a) try Assange first, then extradite him to the US, b) extradite him to the US, then upon completion of trial or sentence have him returned to Sweden for his trial there, or c) try Assange and simply deny the US extradition request. I would assume
    • by pehrs (690959)

      There is a significant difference between ally and lapdog. You can do a lot with your lapdogs you can't do with your allies.

      I don't know if he is guilty or not. But the whole case have been handled in a strange, high profile, way all the way, which hints that there is a lot of political pressure involved. And that is not good for our legal system here in Sweden.

    • by mckinnsb (984522) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:04AM (#35299194)

      It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress. Right now, Assange is an Australian Citizen who has committed no crime in the United States or in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations. While in Sweden, Assange will be incarcerated or on bail while he awaits and undergoes trial, a process which could take years. This means that Assange will not be able to leave Sweden for a country which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States while undergoing trial in Sweden: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_treaties_or_agreements [wikipedia.org] for a list of them. This would give the United States time either pass the bill, or find *something* they can stick on Assange. (While Assange is no mobster, remember that they got Capone on tax evasion. The powers that be don't always care about *how* you become guilty, just that you are.)

      I'm sure they would have preferred to keep him in the UK - they are the provincial spear carrier of the United States, to use Chomsky's words -, but he committed no crime there, and they are trying to make this look as "legal" as possible. The last thing they want to do is make a huge scene over this, or make a martyr out of Assange through "unjust law" (although that still may happen) and spawn copycats. Thus the die down in press on Assange since his first denial of bond; until now of course.

      Don't be surprised if the next thing you see on FOX News is Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of the SHIELD Act, while on CNN you have a "balanced debate" about "national security" and the "continuing need" for "tighter safeguards against terrorism".

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      The U.S. has a powerful influence over the whole EU (and much of the rest of the world). And Assange has no power. Guess who most governments will side with.

      He would have been smarter to go to a country whose government was actively hostile to the U.S. and their edicts (like Cuba or Venezuela).

      • Why would someone who stands for free press and free access to information want to go to a country like Cuba?
        • by elrous0 (869638) *

          Because it beats prison, and because Castro would be more than happy to allow him all the freedom he wanted--as long as he wasn't embarrassing Castro or one of his friends.

    • by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:37AM (#35299588) Homepage

      However the safest place for Assange to resist extradition is the country where he is a citizen, especially as there is a political divide in government about whether wikileaks is a good or bad thing. The underdog, the battler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_battler [wikipedia.org] is very big in Australian culture and Julian versus the whole US government would be extremely popular, especially after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths [wikipedia.org] and that took more than three years without much public sympathy (and not after being lied into a war in Iraq), something which those diplomatic would have likely exposed.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      I thought one of the demands England made for extradition to Sweden was that Assange would not be extradited to the US from Sweden?
      Then again, laws only apply to people the US likes.

  • by Seumas (6865) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:53AM (#35299080)

    I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.

    • by Arkham (10779)

      I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.

      TLDR: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW/OLD GOVERNMENT OVERLORDS.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by lxt (724570)

      It amazes me that people here just don't get the fact that Assange has no case. If you actually read the ruling (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/index), you'll see that not only legally did he have very little to actually complain about, but his own defense lawyer basically lied to the court.

      So go ahead, rant about big government and scary oppression all you want, but it's completely irrelevant to this case. Britain and Sweden are members of the European Union. One of the major benefits of

      • You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

        What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

      • Heh, reading the ruling makes for quite an amusing time :) The defence witness Brita Sundberg-Weitman seems to make quite a fool of her self in front of the court, admitting that much of what she is complaining about is either not in her expertise or is solely based on information supplied by the defence and no one else, as was the case with a second defence witness Sven-Eric Alhem who also agreed that under the same circumstances he would have also issued the extradition warrant request!

        Theres loads of
  • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:54AM (#35299086) Journal

    At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.

      Uh, seriously? Once they have him in their hands it's all over. The USA invents some new charges and bingo, extradition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elrous0 (869638) *

      The U.S. wants him in prison. It serves their purposes even better if it's on rape charges (because those charges discredit him and tarnish his martyr status too). They don't just want him just taken out, they want him discredited. That's why they've been stirring up dissent among his former supporters too (some of whom [wikipedia.org] were likely plants sent in for this very purpose).

      After all, why make him a martyr by dragging him to the U.S. and charging him with dubious espionage charges when you can send him to prison

    • by Xest (935314) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:58AM (#35299890)

      You're assuming of course that Sweden will follow the letter of the law.

      It's perfectly possible Sweden will just ignore it's obligations and ship him to the US anyway. Why? Because a nice lucrative deal for their corporations in the US will be worth far more to them than a bit of fall out in Europe which will result in perhaps a few bullish exchanges, and then will be quickly forgotten.

      That's really all the US has to offer Sweden- something to make it worthwhile for them, and as Sweden is such a small country, it's not too hard to do something that'll make a big impact. A $20bn trade deal might not be enough to sway countries like the UK or Germany into dodging their international obligations, but to Sweden it would've been enough to completely negate their annual economic contraction during the recent financial turmoil and then given them some growth on top.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:56AM (#35299102)

    ...who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website...

    Maybe so, but I think he did more for moving the Arab World towards Democracy than the US ever did.

    I mean think about this: food prices are going through the roof and people see, thanks to WikiLeaks, that their "leaders" are living high on the hog at their expense. I think they've seen (I hope) that their leaders played them for chumps by blaming the US for all their problems and at the same time, taking billions in foreign "aid" for the US so that the despots can fight against terrorism - our retarded Government actually believed that only the despots could fight against terrorism.

    And I think the leaks have shown that some of their "revolutionary leaders" who are "standing up to" the US are nothing but liars and cheats.

    If the charges are true, I would expect Assange to pay and if they are made up for whatever reason - government intrigue or for attention whoring - I hope that he is exonerated and the people behind the ruse are exposed and punished.

  • But at least it's good to see that despite Assange being "special" and ostensibly exempt from the rules and obligations that the rest of us must adhere to -- being a douchebag will still bring you unstuck.

  • TFA says: "to face allegations of sexual assault"

    But there are no charges in Sweden against Assange. Why didn't the defence lawyers bring this up? He is not formally accused of anything.
    • Apparently they are extraditing him with the purpose of prosecuting him, not just to question him.
      • by srussia (884021)
        Thanks for the clue, but I still don't grok how "questioning with intent to prosecute" is equivalent to being charged with an offence.

        I followed the Guardian's links and found this: "... the Swedish prosecutor has made it clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence before trial, he will be tried."

        WTF?
    • by Americano (920576)

      Because the case is still in the investigation phase. According to TFA:

      In his summary Riddle accused Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, of making a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. Assange had clearly attempted to avoid the Swedish justice system before he left the country, Riddle said. "It would be a reasonable assumption from the facts that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation before he left Sweden."

      They are returning him to Sweden, where they will finish their investigati

      • An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more.

        Yet Sweden claims they're only interested in him for questioning, and have not yet charged him with anything... What you say about there only needing to be an investigation is not actually true.

      • Re:On what charges? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:00AM (#35299928) Journal

        I was under the impression that Sweden gave him permission to leave the country. How could he skip town if they let him leave?

        • by Americano (920576)

          According to the judge in the UK, it sounds like he took steps to avoid contact with the investigators. It's entirely possible that his "permission to leave" was granted like so:
          Mr. Assange: "Can I leave town?"
          Swedish Police: "Sure, you can leave town. But we will probably want you to come back for further questioning."
          Mr. Assange: "Okay, great, I'll be in London if you need me."

  • by h00manist (800926) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:02AM (#35299162) Journal
    Wikileaks popularized leaks, as Napster did p2p. Legal or not to authorities, the people have approved and adopted it, and it cannot be squashed so easily, short of a legal massacre. There is no going back, the genie is out of the bottle, the cat out of the bag, change is here, either side with progress and change, or with the establishment and status quo. Assange being prosecuted and imprisoned will encourage people, release him and the same will happen.
    • Assange being prosecuted and imprisoned will encourage people, release him and the same will happen.

      Even if that's true, they're probably banking that *fewer* people will be 'encouraged' if they manage to eventually execute him.

  • What I don't get is how they can extradite him to sweden if he's not even facing charges there. It's going to look really funny when his plane arrives and he just walks away to find a hotel. Shouldn't sweden be required to at least say they plan to file charges?
  • by Martin Spamer (244245) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:16AM (#35299336) Homepage Journal

    The Judgement [judiciary.gov.uk]

    Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge: ... "I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden." Assange has seven days to appeal the decision.

    He also said that Hurtig (Assange's Swedish Lawyer) is an "unreliable witness".

    Ms Ny (Swedish Prosecutor) notified Mr Hurtiq at 0911 on September 27th that she had decided to arrest Assange, he left Sweden the afternoon of the same day ahead of schedule. Hurtiq claimed he was not told until 30th September."

    Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. Judge states "In fact this is untrue", "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake." and "The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."

    Mr Robertson, (Assenge's British Lawyer) accepted that onward extradition to Gitmo was without merit excluding it from final argument.

    Judge final statement "In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden."

  • It would be stupid for the US government to bring him here at this time. Even here in the US there are still enough free thinkers left to make that controversial. If he gets convicted in Sweden then he is out of their hair anyway. Worse than that his reputation is thoroughly trashed and would probably never recover. If he is extradited the opposite could occur, he could become a martyr. If the US got involved at all I think it would be to ensure the outcome of the rape trial, not to extradite him. I'm su
    • There are also enough free thinkers left to make the war on drugs controversial, but that has not stopped anyone. There are enough free thinkers who question corporate welfare, but that does not stop the government either. So why would free thinkers have any effect on the government's policies with Assange?
  • it's just one guy. wikileaks is larger than one man. assange knows this. you should know it to

    it's a failure of most people that we get all caught up in the personalities, and forget the principles. it's true of anything political

    say the USA lock assange up for the rest of his life. and? will that stop wikileaks? will that stop people from using wikileaks or bringing material to wikileaks? will that stop other wikileaks-like projects?

    whatever!

    the IDEA matters, the PERSON is irrelevant. assange would be the first to say this to you. they can do anything they want to him, they haven't destroyed his fame, and what made his name, and the idea he started

    you can assassinate a man. you can smear his good name. but you can't stop HIS IDEA

    THAT'S what is important

    one man is brought down, but the cause continues unabated. i'm not afraid, are you afraid? i'm angered, are you angered?

    so stop freaking out over the personality, focus on the principles. nothing's changed

  • by grimJester (890090) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:02AM (#35299948)
    Here [judiciary.gov.uk]

    I haven't read it completely through yet, but it seems mostly reasonable. Assange's Swedish lawyer Hurtig is seen as unreliable and willfully deceiving. AT the very least he screwed up with some dates.

    On (Brita Sundberg-Weitman's comments on) Marianne Ny:

    She was then taken to the main passage of which complaint was made, where it says: âoeMarianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings (criminal prosecutions) have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convictedâ. She appeared to understand this passage as saying that everyone who is prosecuted is guilty and had difficulty in accepting that another interpretation is simply that there are occasions when a man is prosecuted and, for whatever reason, acquitted even though he may have been guilty. She did not appear to accept that there is a public interest in prosecuting, where the evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal. It appears that the witnessâ(TM)s main objection to the paragraph quoted was a reference to âoeperpetratorsâ on the basis that the word is objectionable and biased.

    I'd disagree with the "there are occasions when"-interpretation here exactly because Ny only talks about "perpetrators". The main argument against her policy of having the accused in jail to provide comfort for the victim is that some people really are innocent, people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and she avoids that thought completely. Swedish original [domstol.se], pages 8-9 for the interested.

    • Swedish original [domstol.se], pages 8-9 for the interested.

      (Translation isn't really good English; I tried to be as literal as possible)

      Only when the man is in custody (Swedish term translates to "freedom deprived") and the woman in calm and peace has the time to get some perspective on her life, she has a chance to discover how shes been treated.

      Through the legal process ("lagforing", maybe "taking into the legal process"), the judiciary switches the responsibility onto the one who resorts to violence. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that the legal process has a good effect as protection for the woman, even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty ("domd", condemned?)

      Note that there's half a page of text between these two paragraphs, so one can't really say omitting the first is obviously taking the second out of context.

  • by seyyah (986027) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:20AM (#35300176)

    A few days back, a British extradition lawyer analysed the defence team's arguments in the Guardian: Julian Assange is very likely to be extradited, says Matrix barrister [guardian.co.uk].

    Looks like he was right.

  • by ath1901 (1570281) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:50AM (#35301368)

    Personally, I hope he gets extradited to Sweden. Not because I think he's a bad guy or guilty of any crime but because it is the only way to see if the world is as bat-shit-crazy as he claims.

    If he is extradited to Sweden and held until America makes up a good enough excuse to get him extradited to America, then I have to buy a bunker and stockpile cans of soup. I hope he's wrong but the only way to find out is to get him extradited.

    In the best case, he's sent to Sweden, the prosecutor/court find the case to be way too weak/silly to proceed and he's set free. Then we can all go back to trusting the (Swedish) authorities and hope for a better future.

    If not, then the world is much more scary than I thought and the chances of a war/rebellion/other are greater than I could ever imagine. Hence the bunker and soup.

    Sacrificing Assange is a small price to pay to find out if the conspiracy theories are true.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...