Slashdot Mirror

And if Sweden goes to the UK and asks, "Is it okay if we extradite Assange on to the US from here under the EAW you sent him to us under," you don't think that will cause just as much backlash, for both Sweden AND the UK?

This doesn't even buy the UK the *semblance* of plausible deniability, because the EAW framework explicitly states that Sweden MUST seek the approval of the UK before sending him on to ANY non-EU member state while he is in their custody under the auspices of the EAW. There is no way that the UK can claim "they never approved it," unless you REALLY think that Sweden has cheerfully agreed to take the fall for the US AND the UK, and that all of the fallout, penalties, and sanctions that will be levied against them will be taken with a smile that says, "We don't care about international law, our treaty obligations, or the opinions of the world, as long as we can make the US government happy while not benefitting ourselves in any way, that's ALL we really need."

Also, please note that I think Sweden:
1) receiving an extradition request from the US;
AND
2) agreeing that the extradition request is valid and worth seeking the UK's approval for;

Is incredibly unlikely to begin with. There is no evidence - zero, nada, zip, zilch - that the US has any evidence of wrongdoing on Assange's part, the only charge they could likely slap him with at all would be espionage (some extradition treaties *specifically* omit crimes such as this as extraditable offenses). Without evidence, specific charges, and a formal request (the collection & assembly of which would require the cooperation of dozens of people here in the US, as well as at least a handful in Sweden), there is no chance he will be extradited. I know you're going to bring up the "but what about rendition to Egypt," which just shows you're cherry-picking: that was a denial of a request for asylum and a repatriation after the denial - which, as you're no doubt aware NOW, since Mr. Assange is seeking asylum, is an entirely different process than extradition.

From the Swedish government's website (emphasis mine):

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, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). 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

It's pretty clear that the US would have some very high hurdles to clear to even begin an extradition process - remember, this is legal terminology: "may not" is not "maybe yes, maybe no" - "may not" is "you are restricted from doin

That's not even close to true According to the Swedish government The prosecutors office can block an application before it even gets considered but if the person being extradited objects to the extradition, the request must be approved by the courts.

After reading this I went to the Swedish government website on extraditions And I went off and read the relevant treaties with the US (article VI is the relevant one) Now there is something called a temporary extradition but it is only for the case where someone is being prosecuted or has been sentenced in Sweden so that the person can be returned to Sweden at the completion of there sentence. I see no evidence that this is for questioning or anything like that and all normal safeguards are in place. The only people who seem to be claiming otherwise are Assange supporters.

Wrong:

Sweden could only hand him over to the US under certain situations:
--
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....
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
--

So the US would have to extradite him for a non-military, non-political offence, that may not in any case lead to a death penalty. If they would present such a case, Sweden could be bound by international law to hand him over. Otherwise Sweden would be bound by international law NOT TO hand him over.

We have recently seen somewhat too close ties between the U.S. embassy and the judges here, when the case about The Pirate Bay took place, so I don't think one has to be too paranoid to fear such a chain of events.

Since the Swedish extradition process doesn't work that way I think we can safely say it is nonsense.

Questions and answers about extradition from Sweden

Probably just to draw attention to how ridiculous, trumped-up and politically-motivated these nasty allegations against him are.

Under Swedish law, not so much: New legislation on sexual crimes - Ju 05.07e June 2005

Fighting every little thing tooth and nail, with press releases all along the way, is about all he can do.

Whether he is guilty or innocent.

Right you are. Because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Because the specific "crime" that TPB was convicted of -- is facilitating copyright infringement. I now give you a link to the Swedish copyright law. I'll provide the English translation, on the presumption that you don't read Swedish (and, no, my Swedish isn't very good either)

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/02/85/96e05389.pdf

Read it, to determine what facilitating illegal file sharing would be.

I'll then point you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial

and I'll quote from there -

"The appeal started on September 28, 2010 and concluded on October 15, 2010.[122] On November 26, 2010, the verdict was announced. In the verdict, the court found that âoeThe Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.â

4 months to 1 year in jail, with a total fine of 6.5 million dollars.

In conclusion, no actual crime was proven, but somehow TPB facilitated that crime.

In my post above, I "facilitated" crime worth penalties of just under 1 million with a jail time of 2 weeks to 2 months (based on the TPB trial, anyway, and scaled). No, I did MORE than TPB did, because I knowingly copy/pasted that string. Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. I think someone should sue me next.

As a Master's theology student and active church member, I agree. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with church tax breaks. Sure, it's nice, and maybe if there's rules for secular non-profits I wouldn't mind incorporating in that sense, but for governments to specifically say "you're a religious organization, you get tax breaks" is to say as well that "you're _not_ a religious organization, you get no tax breaks." You can't read a lot of religious history without getting nervous about governments deciding what is and isn't a religion.

As an unrelated aside, the same kind of argument is why I dislike legal protection of "traditional" marriage.

In Sweden religious organisations don't get tax breaks -- they get state grants, on the premise that they are important for public health and an important part of the Swedish society, i.e. an important part of many peoples life. There are a lot of other kinds of organisations that recieve state grants on similar premises, like youth organisations, sport organisations, health movements, environmental movements, political movements, et.c. So it is not just religious organisations that have this kind of benefits The Swedish laws and regulations are carefully worded so that religious organisations that have the right to receive state grants, get no other stately recognition then being an important part of life to some people, i.e. there are no official "right or wrong" when it comes to religion or other beliefs in Sweden. Please note that most organisations promoting atheism (Förbundet Humanisterna being the largest) or religious scepticism ,also receive state grants on similar grounds, although those grants are regulated by other government bodies and regulations.

SST - Nämnden för statligt stöd till trossamfund is the "myndighet" (sorry, no exact corresponding term exist in English, there are similar English terms (like government body/public body), but if you use those you get a lot of Anglo-Saxon prejudice included) that grants religious organisations this support. It is regulated in the Act on Religious Communities [the English translation is, of course, not in every aspect identical to the actual Swedish law (in Swedish), it is just a rude approximation that can be expressed in English].

Nor does Sweden:

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

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.

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. [...] Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

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. [...] Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

Copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden.

It is also most definitely a civil offense. In fact, IPRED establishes the civil legal issues of coypright, rather than criminal.

Then also according to http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10634/a/117091, "Infringements of intellectual property rights can also result in criminal sanctions such as fines or imprisonment, but this is more of a complement to the civil remedies."

This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.

But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).

These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.

(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.

Quoted in entirety because it is informative, insightful, and the reason "countless news agencies" don't have anything to worry from profiting from the work they do. Be they Swedish or USA.

This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.

But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).

These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.

(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.

I don't think that you are correct in calling Sweden communist.

A person who, with the intention of committing or promoting a crime, presents or receives money or anything else as pre-payment or payment for the crime or who procures, constructs, gives, receives, keeps, conveys or engages in any other similar activity with poison, explosive, weapon, picklock, falsification tool or other such means, shall, in cases where specific provisions exist for the purpose, be sentenced for preparation of crime unless he is guilty of a completed crime or attempt. In specially designated cases a sentence shall also be imposed for conspiracy. By conspiracy is meant that someone decides on the act in collusion with another as well as that someone undertakes or offers to execute it or seeks to incite another to do so.

I'm from Norway, but the situation should be quite similar. And I believe it should be quite easy: There should be relatively little paperwork, since the borders are quite open in Europe.

Most Scandinavians speak and understand English well enough to converse and trade in other countries. You will find that the general public (and knowledge workers even more) are quite critical to the way the U.S. is run, many now to the degree that they would not set foot there if they can avoid it. You'll also find that any effort to learn the local language is appreciated. For example, in Sweden you'd say "Tjena - Hur mår ni?" ("Hi - How are you?") as "Tyehna - Hoor moore nih?" :)

Good news about citizenship: [C]itizenship is acquired at birth if one parent is a Swedish citizen.

Dunno about pets, but they shouldn't need more than a check-up and maybe some time in quarantine.

Wood is not a fossil fuel and does not incerease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sweeden is basing much of its efforts to become CO2 neutral on that fact:Making Sweden an OIL-FREE Society

So does this mean that they're gonna arrest Taco, Zonk and Co.?

It's worth a try!

*cough* :)

True, but they also have free health care, education, retirement, child care, and parental leave.

"Free" means a tax rate of about 50% of GDP, including a VAT of 25% on all goods and services, as well as income taxes of 29%-34% for most people, and 40% social insurance tax on income. Sweden even taxes pensions and sickness benefits as income.

So imagine putting aside 25% of everything you spend, and 60-70% of everything you earn...

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/03/02/15/740 c9781.pdf

BTW, 46 million low-income Americans receive health benefits from Medicare, so we are on the way to socialized health care in the US already. Plus I think you will see that the U.S. was a more violent country than anywhere in Scandanavia way before their move to greater socialism.

But hey, don't let me stop you from moving to Sweden or Denmark if you prefer! Norway would be better, they've got the oil money.

Here is an article on Danish taxes:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011107A

Sweden has a lot of immigration. 12% of residents are immigrants

Yeah, but most are of the "Polish plumber" new EU country variety and have some skills. That said, I'm proud of Sweden for keeping the doors open to immigration, unlike Denmark.

He was released in July 2004: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/4166/nocache/true/a/ 27298/dictionary/true

Since treehugger.com was too greedy to publish the link, here is the original announcement http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058 from Mona Sahlin, Minister for Sustainable Development.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=468 440&previousRenderType=6Original article in Swedish, from the swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058Original article translated, on Goverment offices of Swedens official site.

Now take it with a grain of salt. The article was written for the political debate section of a newspaper, during an election year.

While I do applaud initiatives to limit oil use, both for environmental and economical reasons, this timetable is just too optimistic. Attempts to do this politically is really not feasible, though it might happen anyway (and on a global level) if the predictions about peak oil is true.

Few analysts in Sweden believed that this was anything else than political hot air when this was announced a couple of months ago. Anyway, if you want to get the announcement from the source, it is here. The minister's own homepage is here.

Mona Sahlin was very popular a couple of years ago and was predicted to be the successor to Göran Persson and become the first female prime minister in Sweden, but she fell from grace when it turned out that she had bought some private articles such as diapers and a chocolate bar with a government credit card. At least, that is the way I remember it, perhaps some more politically astute Swede can fill in the details. :-)
One hopes that this is a sign that we hold our politicians to higher standards and that they are less corrupt than most countries, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if some pretty nasty scandals have been covered up quietly.

While I do applaud initiatives to limit oil use, both for environmental and economical reasons, this timetable is just too optimistic. Attempts to do this politically is really not feasible, though it might happen anyway (and on a global level) if the predictions about peak oil is true.

Few analysts in Sweden believed that this was anything else than political hot air when this was announced a couple of months ago. Anyway, if you want to get the announcement from the source, it is here. The minister's own homepage is here.

Mona Sahlin was very popular a couple of years ago and was predicted to be the successor to Göran Persson and become the first female prime minister in Sweden, but she fell from grace when it turned out that she had bought some private articles such as diapers and a chocolate bar with a government credit card. At least, that is the way I remember it, perhaps some more politically astute Swede can fill in the details. :-)
One hopes that this is a sign that we hold our politicians to higher standards and that they are less corrupt than most countries, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if some pretty nasty scandals have been covered up quietly.

Or maybe because they are located in Sweden which has it's own constitution?

Why, what's happened to Goran Persson?

If not, why do you expect the security guard to know the exact details of the law he's paid to enforce?