Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom News

Julian Assange Served With Extradition Notice By British Police 612

Posted by samzenpus
from the pack-your-bags dept.
An anonymous reader writes "London's Metropolitan Police have delivered an 'Extradition Notice' to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, who sought refuge and political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week. Scotland Yard have said in a brief statement that 'the notice requires Julian Assange to attend a police station of our choosing at a set time.' SY also said, 'This is standard procedure in extradition cases and is the first step in the removal process. He remains in breach of his bail conditions and failure to surrender would be a further breach of those conditions and he is liable to arrest.' However, under international diplomatic arrangements, the British Metropolitan Police cannot actually go into the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Mr Assange. Assange would have to leave the embassy to be lawfully arrested. This raises the following question of course: Is this the 'endgame' for Julian Assange as far as extradition is concerned? If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States, where many well known and quite senior politicians have publicly stated that they think 'Assange should be punished severely' for publishing confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on Wikileaks?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Julian Assange Served With Extradition Notice By British Police

Comments Filter:
  • Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:19PM (#40488133)
    Hopefully Assange gets protection in Ecuador soon and can continue his work rather than having to face baseless and hilariously named smears by the Swedish "legal" system.
    • Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:25PM (#40488213)

      Hopefully Assange finally goes to trial so we can stop reading about every last thing he does to escape the Swedish legal* system.

      * Note the lack of quotes.

      • Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:35PM (#40488995) Homepage Journal

        The article talks about "standing trial" in Sweden - where charges have not even been filed against him. "Extradition for inquiry" by a judge does not met a recognised standard for extradition, and the British justices tortured the statutes and precedent to accomplish their writ.

        The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.

        • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @11:02PM (#40489627) Journal
          Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first? Not only that but, under the terms of the European arrest warrant the UK would have to agree to let Sweden extradite him to the US.

          At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity. The US concerns I think are just Assange's over active imagination. I'm sure the US wants to get him but they could do that far more easily in the UK than Sweden.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @11:34PM (#40489857)
            In Sweden, the US only needs to request a "temporary transfer", which, if approved by the Swedish police, will send Assange on a plane and to the US on the presumption that someday he'll be back to face charges in Sweden as well. Unlike the UK, there is no court in the way. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden [wikipedia.org]
            • by cavreader (1903280) on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:45AM (#40490291)

              If the US really wanted him they would already have him. The US government has already shown they really don't give a shit about him. He is not worth the bother. The guy is publicity hound so why oblige his narcissism and give him a bigger pulpit to preach his gospel? They got the person who allegedly stole the data off military computers which is clearly a civilian and military crime. The most Assange could have every really been charged with is receipt of stolen property. If it had been data stolen from the Russians and most likely China Assange would have already suffered some kind of fatal accident.

          • by Joce640k (829181) on Friday June 29, 2012 @02:44AM (#40490875) Homepage

            Given the UK's extradition treaty with the US basically hands over our sovereign rights to the US with ridiculously low standards for extradition why would it make any sense to extradite him to Sweden first?

            Because extradition from the UK requires you to be accused of a crime and the USA can't come up with one.

            Extradition from Sweden doesn't require a crime, they can send you to the USA for 'questioning' (with zero paperwork, too - double win!)

            Full details here: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]

          • by coolmadsi (823103)

            At the same time if Sweden wants to just interview him why not send a couple of officers over to the UK, talk to him and if he is not convincing then extradite him to face charges? However this I can put down to incompetence/bureaucratic stupidity.

            Good question. I remember reading that Assange was more than happy to talk to a Swedish investigator in the UK, either by one coming to him, or via video link. For some reason the Swedish investigators did not want to do this.

            • by Rei (128717) on Friday June 29, 2012 @06:28AM (#40491815) Homepage

              "Some reason" is that a suspect has to be in Swedish custody to have charges filed against them, by Swedish law. There are limited exceptions, but they don't apply in this case.

              Assange's attorneys are doing their darndest to try to make this into some giant international conspiracy, but this is the way the extradition process works. He'll go to Sweden (and yes, he will eventually; even if Ecuador approves his asylum bid, he has no means to get from the Ecuadorian embassy to the country, so he'd be facing life inside an embassy building in the UK as his alternative, which probably isn't all that much better than a Swedish prison - can't even get proper healthcare or other basic needs there). He'll be taken in for questioning. He'll remain in jail (Sweden isn't as big on bail, and Assange has clearly shown that he's a flight risk) until the trial. He'll go to trial. Odds are, given the evidence against him and that the two courts reviewing it have already found it credible, he'll be convicted. His sentence will be up to four years. He'll then walk.

          • by Darinbob (1142669) on Friday June 29, 2012 @05:21AM (#40491503)

            Sweden can't just change it's codified laws and procedures just because some guy is paranoid. Maybe it's not the way the UK and US do things but it is their legal system. Now if this was some dictatorship on the human rights watch list with the non-English legal system then you might have a point. However this is a member of the EU and which has treaties with the UK.

            Every single time one of these stories comes up people keep pointing out how Swedish law is not like English law. Stop being so parochial and xenophobic.

        • Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jimicus (737525) on Friday June 29, 2012 @03:44AM (#40491175)

          The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.

          Disclaimer: IANAL.

          I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.

          But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.

          If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.

          If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.

          Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).

          So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:

            - To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
            - To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.

          The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833)

      Seeking protection in Ecuador against the Swedish legal system!!! That's a laugh. Ecuador president Correa is the main competitor to his best friends Chavez and Castro in maintaining his power by constantly bashing the USA and blaming the West for all his country's problems, intimidating and imprisoning journalists who oppose him and implementing idiotic populist socialist policies. I suppose a natural ally for Assange.

    • Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:45PM (#40488443)

      Even if you don't agree with the laws of a nation, you should follow them. If you are not prepared to do so, then you should not visit the nation. The only exception to this is when you disobey the law in civil protest.

      He stands accused of "rape", but the term itself varies from country to country and across translations. In this case, afaik, two women consented to protected sex with him under specific conditions. Those conditions changed and consent was withdrawn, yet he continued. Think about it for a minute. If the woman says "stop" and you don't, then it most certainly is a form of rape. Perhaps you have no respect for women and thus consider it ok to continue after that point, but most jurisdictions in the West do not. The labelling of the crime may differ, but this is generally not allowed so there is no reason to denigrate the Swedish legal system on account of this.

      Assange's work with Wikileaks, despite sometimes being apparently motivated by his egomania, is overall for the greater good. Governments argue that airing their dirty laundry for all to see places people in danger and threatens the national interest. They need to be taught that they are responsible for perpetrating such actions in the first place. For that reason, I hope that Assange will not be extradited to the US where he will face an increasingly unfair political process.

      Despite that, his work does note give him a carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The fact that you would dismiss all accusations against him without even hearing the evidence shows that you think some people should be above the law. That attitude threatens society as a whole. Double standards for people based on how much you like them personally is not acceptable in a legal context.

      Maybe there is a conspiracy to get him extradited to the US through Sweden. Maybe there isn't. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls because he doesn't think it's a big deal and, like you, doesn't respect the laws of sovereign host nations. We'll probably never know because there are so many other factors involved. I understand that modern media have taught most of us to view things in black and white, but please try to understand that this situation is much more nuanced than that. Maybe it makes your brain hurt to consider all of the different aspects, but the least you can do is try before making ignorant posts with simplistic opinions.

      • Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:11PM (#40488733)

        Come on. This has been talked about everywhere. You can't possibly be unaware by now that what you describe ("consent was withdrawn, yet he continued") is not even alleged by the prosecutors.

        And come on again. You can't possibly not know that this entire affair is because of the conspiracy to extradite from Sweden. The "crime" he committed isn't even a prison offense. It's not that he "doesn't want to pay for what he did to those girls" as you put it - girls which by the way, praised him in a party following the "rape", and by the way, were even unaware they've been "raped" until the nice prosecutor told them so.

        I'm not sure what your angle is, but you are woefully misinformed and misinforming to be accidental.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        My understanding is that they did not object after the conditions changed, but that he agreed to the conditions but didn't satisfy them. They didn't say "stop" They said "go" and he did. They later claimed that had they known he was sleeping with other women, they wouldn't have consented, which is the same as if they had not consented and he forced himself on them.

        He lied. They consented. He didn't force himself on anyone. After everything was done, they revoked their consent, and the previous act
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lexsird (1208192)

      Christ, the fascists are hard at modding down in this one. Take note of how anything supportive of Assange gets the mod-hammer. Isn't it ironic, that America, land of the free, where freedom of the press is suppose to have it's home, are being complete draconian imperial jackasses at someone exercising a free press? This whole "sex scandal" smells so fucking trumped up it's sickening. We did the same thing to the IMF chief who was here to confirm if Ft Knox still had any gold left in it. The sex scandal pla

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:20PM (#40488143)

    Can you be extradited twice? Shouldn't it be Sweden what seeks extradition from Ecuador?

  • by nurb432 (527695)

    In a matter of time Julian will be.

  • Scare quotes? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chuckstar (799005) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:22PM (#40488169)

    Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"? Whether you believe the accusations, or whether you believe those accusations should count as rape, he would actually go on trial for two counts of rape... not for two counts of 'rape'.

    • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot@gmai l . c om> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:28PM (#40488229) Homepage Journal
      Because it's not rape by any english language definition. There was no non-consensual or forced sex. It was sex with a broken condom. If she doesn't know it's broken, it's "Rape", just like the Arab who went to jail for consensual sex with an Israeli went to jail for "rape" because he didn't tell her she was an arab, and no jew would have sex with an arab. Quotes are appropriate. Not to mention the background of the woman who actually made the accusation -- after which she deleted her tweets about enjoying herself, and her blogpost on how to get revenge on a man you find cheating on you (which, IIRC, involved filing false rape claims).

      Scare quotes are absolutely appropriate.

      • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:47PM (#40488481)

        Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.

        • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@NOsPam.hotmail.com> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @10:27PM (#40489395) Journal

          Wasn't there something about him having sex with her while she was asleep? That isn't exactly consensual.

          I know this is Slashdot and all, but even if you have no experience in the subject, at least consider the physics and biology involved.

          Without drugs, staying asleep during sex just doesn't happen. Early morning drowsy sex often does happen (my partner calls it "waking her nicely", and between couples who've already established a sexual relationship, doesn't normally involve stopping to ask explicit permission.

          If consent was withdrawn when she woke, then Assange should have done the same, but that's not what's being said in the accusations.

          I support every woman's right to say "no" to sex at any time, and in normal circumstances I'd side with the Swedish girls involved. In this instance, the stories seem to be very carefully crafted to skirt the divide between outright prosecutable acts and legally consented sex. Crafted well enough in fact, to justify prosecution, while avoiding accusations of perjury.

          I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that the women making the accusations might have been primed by legally-experienced third parties.

      • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ifwm (687373) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:50PM (#40488503) Journal

        Because it's not rape by any english language definition.

        It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.

        And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?

        Quotes are appropriate.

        Bullshit.

        The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.

        Stop giving cover to that kind of nonsense.

        • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ThatsMyNick (2004126) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:58PM (#40488591)

          It's rape by the legal definition of the country charging him, which as far as I'm aware, is all that's necessary.

          And what's this "english language definition" jingoistic crap? What does that have to do with anything? Are non-english speakers somehow incapable of deciding what the definition of rape is in their legal system?

          Even then, it needs to be under quotes. It denotes that this is the Swedish legal version of rape and not the regular definition of rape.

        • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:24PM (#40488861)

          The scare quotes are propaganda, designed to make people question the veracity of the accuser's claims.

          As opposed to the facts surrounding the case causing people to doubt the verasity of the claims. You know, like the fact that the first prosecutor who handled the case dropped all charges for (and again, quotes are appropriate here), "lack of evidence." Like the fact that the "victims" were proud to have slept with Mr. Assange, with one attending a party in his honor after supposedly being raped by him. Nor the fact that both women consented and were able to give consent, and only decided after the fact, and after meeting with each other, to file charges.

          None of that matters; it's the use of quotation marks around the word "rape" that will cause of us to doubt his guilt.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        You make it sound like Sweden is some kind of bassbackwards country. But they (and most of the EU) probably look at us and laugh just as loudly: "Rape charges because a 19 year old had sex with a 17 year old? Child pornography arrests because a 15 year old girl photographed herself nude with her phone??? Those Americans are such puritans afraid of their own bodies."

        • by ClintJCL (264898)
          The tone sounds like your disagreeing with me, but the message doesn't. I will confusedly agree with you and feel neutral about it.
      • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Informative)

        by lga (172042) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:02PM (#40488633) Homepage Journal

        Um, it wasn't a broken condom, it was no condom and in her sleep, and yes it was rape. The British Magistrate's court and High Court said so. Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law? [jackofkent.com]

        • by ClintJCL (264898)
          That's funny, because the women went to police not to seek prosecution but to make him take an AIDS test. So it seems they didn't want to press any charges. Funny that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Sorry, sex with a broken condom that she thinks is intact and he knows isn't isn't rape . It may be reckless endangerment of a sort for both pregnancy and disease.

        But it isn't rape, and calling it such does a disservice to actual rape victims.

    • Re:Scare quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:42PM (#40488401)

      Why are we using scare quotes for the word "rape"?

      Because the Swedish definition of rape is "if I wake up the next day and regret it, then it's rape", not the "he forced me to have sex" that everyone else uses.

  • Naturally (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Master Moose (1243274) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:23PM (#40488189) Homepage

    Will Sweden then hand Assange over to the United States

    I thought that was the point of all of this?

    • Re:Naturally (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:24AM (#40490145)

      I wish you people could see just how silly that is.

      The UK has an extradition treaty with the US that causes them to hand their own citizens over for crimes that aren't even crimes in the UK. The only way to avoid this is to prove you're going to be executed or civilly committed for life (that was the new one from a day ago). Yet you people think it's actually going to be easier to extradite him from Sweden, a country with very strong protections, no extradition treaty and a history of standing up to US requests.

      And you believe this because it's a conspiracy theory that the US is just that diabolical. For all their bluster the US doesn't want to extradite him because they wouldn't be able to convict him of anything. The only reason they can even do anything to Manning is because they have an oath and the UCMJ to try him under.

      This whole argument that they want to extradite him to Sweden so they can extradite him to the US should be insulting to the Swede's. He's going to end up in Sweden and this prosecutor that only charges people for rape and prefers to charge famous people (regardless of merits) for the publicity will likely charge him, he'll beat the charges and it'll be over. He won't be extradited to the US (they won't even ask) and you all will act like the publicity scared the US off and pretend none of this circus and accusations ever happened. It's so bloody silly it's not even funny.

  • by gnasher719 (869701) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:23PM (#40488191)
    First, everyone who helped paying for his bail won't see their money back, because Assange is not at his bail address, thus violating bail conditions. And political asylum in Ecuador? Seriously? That would actually mean that eventually he would have to move to Ecuador, and to stay there. I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.
    • I'd rather spend a bit of time in Sweden than a lifetime in Ecuador. I don't think Ecuador is too much fun when your money runs out.

      Probably not, but I'll bet it's still more fun than any U.S. federal prison, which is where he's likely to end up if he goes to Sweden.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      False dilemma. It's not a question of a lifetime in Ecuador vs. a small bit of time in a Swedish jail. It's a question of a lifetime in Ecuador vs. a lifetime in a pound-me-in-the-ass USA prison, or worse, torture in Guantanamo.

  • he's screwed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:24PM (#40488205)

    He has been screwed from day one, and nobody's going to help him because the United States is the thug nobody will stand up to. The message we've been sending post-9/11 has been consistently "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you get in our way, we'll squish you like a bug." We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners, and we torture and kill civilians and foreign nationals after judging them in secret in the President's own Star Chamber.

    Everything else is really pretext. The 'rape' charges, the media spin and control, the reveal that our government has an entire task force dedicated to psyops to discredit anyone who disagrees with our foreign or domestic policies... the government is out of control. We've become the terrorists we sought to destroy... and frankly... until someone punches America in the face so hard they flinch, nothing's going to change.

    Although that said, our huge military investments while our infrastructure rots away and our middle class disintegrates is creating the exact same socioeconomic conditions that led to the sudden coup de etat and dissolution of the USSR. I would not be surprised if there is a civil uprising here in the next 10 years and the United States breaks up into several smaller countries. This may in fact have been the long-term strategy of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. -- we have such a big ego and need for total dominance that we'll literally spend ourselves into a hole we can't get out of trying to maintain that, rather than acknowledging that we lost a fight and you know, that's okay sometimes (like every other country has had to). If all it took to bring down the largest military and economic power on the planet was a few airplanes flown into the side of buildings and some sabre rattling from some country built out of dirt claiming they're going to make nuclear weapons... It'll be the most effective force multiplication ever seen in warfare. Ever.

  • by lga (172042) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:38PM (#40488357) Homepage Journal

    Statements made by his own lawyer about what Assange did talk about actions that are legally rape, both in Sweden and in the UK. That's not my opinion, but has been said by other lawyers.

    He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

    In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

    I don't agree that he should be extradited just for questioning, I think there should be charges first, but the courts have upheld the extradition so Assange should just go and answer the questions. Of course, based on the above quotes, he is guilty and does not want to go and face justice.

    In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence! On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied. In addition to extradition from Sweden being far less likely than from the UK, if he were in Sweden then both the UK and Swedish governments would have to agree for further extradition to the US to take place. Picking Ecuador as a place to flee to just proves that Assange is a hypocrite. Ecuador has a rubbish record on freedom of speech.

    I support Wikileaks. I stand for freedom of speech. That doesn't change what Assange did.

    Assange is not a hero anymore, he's just trying to avoid justice.

    • by lga (172042)

      It helps if I remember to post the links. Here's solicitor and legal blogger David Allen Green quoting Assange's legal team and the high court:
      Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law? [jackofkent.com]

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:59PM (#40489159) Homepage Journal

      In any case, if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the US, Sweden is a hell of a lot safer for him than the UK! The UK government hands over anyone and everyone if the US shows as much as a passing interest in prosecuting. Our government doesn't even ask for evidence!

      See here: [justice4assange.com]

      The UK's extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender ('conditional release') clause. The UK's judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

      On the other hand, Sweden will not extradite anyone for political crimes or where the death penalty may be applied.

      and here: [justice4assange.com]

      Sweden has in the recent past violated international treaties in relation to surrendering foreign nationals into US custody to be interrogated and tortured (case of extraordinary rendition, Agiza v. Sweden at the European Court of Human Rights). Furthermore, Amnesty International and the UN Committee against Torture criticised Sweden because it rendered two refugees to the CIA who were then tortured under the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. (A documentary with the testimony of tortured refugees who had been granted asylum and then rendered to the CIA by Sweden was aired on Swedish television on 5 October 2011.

  • Learn to write (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bennyp (809286) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:41PM (#40488395) Homepage
    The charges aren't alleged, but real and confirmed. Assange is charged with rape, not 'rape', and the allegations against him will be proven or discredited along with the charges in court, should it come to that.
  • Well first... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skrotus (2566443) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:44PM (#40488425)
    Well first he would have to be charged with something, he's still only wanted for questioning.
  • by multi io (640409) <olaf.klischat@googlemail.com> on Friday June 29, 2012 @04:58AM (#40491439)
    Well, Assange stayed in the UK for 18 months on the grounds that Sweden would be much more US-friendly than even the UK, and would immediately extradite him. It looks like he now wants to do everything to ensure that nobody can ever falsify that theory. It would be terrible for him if the Swedish authorities just released him after two hours of questioning. The guy has pretty much painted himself into a corner by now.
  • by GauteL (29207) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:20AM (#40492315)

    ...for instance here [guardian.co.uk], I've come to the conclusion that Assange is not a nice person. But whether he is a rapist or just an ass is not yet known. So what on earth should society do in such cases?

    Oh, I have this radical new idea; lets have a meeting where one side presents a case in favour of him being a rapist and the other side presents a case against it. We can call this a trial, and it should occur in the same area where the alleged incidence occurred. Assange has up until now tried all manner of ways to avoid this type of meeting, but several levels of English judges have ALL declared that he cannot avoid it any longer.

    Sweden is not some banana republic with a dodgy legal system and mass corruption. It is a well-formed and reasonably well functioning system, comparing favourably to most. It is considered one of the least corrupt [guardian.co.uk] countries in the world.

    Sweden does, however, tend to have quite strict women's rights and sexual abuse laws. In general the idea is that all parts of a sexual encounter should be consensual (not just whether to do it or not, but also how to do it, i.e. if a woman agreed to sex but not S&M, if you force her down and whip her while doing it, this is most likely rape), force isn't necessary to make an encounter illegal (just making it seem hard to get out of it, or simply ignoring pleas not to, is enough), and a woman's continued interaction with the man afterwards isn't seen as definite proof that the encounter was consensual. For instance, if you're in a position of power, and/or the woman's career or other ambitions depended on her continued interaction with you, or the woman may just feel threatened or blame herself afterwards. It is quite common for victims of abuse to assume it was their own fault, and it is very common for victims of abuse to keep seeing their abuser.

    So far, Assange has resisted attempts at deciding his guilt or innocence, based on an argument that was very self-serving, and unlikely to be correct, and UK judges have called him on it. Now let him have his day in court in Sweden.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...