Slashdot Mirror

3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!

On one hand they are mad, on the other hand it continues to happen. It is very unlikely that it happens without high level consent from the swedes. This being a major problem.

Also both the women are now uncooperative, one of them has even fled to Australia.

I am not supporter of Assange, and consider him a megalomaniac, but his concerns are quite valid.

More to the point,

1) Someone surrendered under an EAW, in order to be extradited to a third state, requires the consent of both states taking part in the EAW request, rather than just one. Being extradited under an EAW only further complicates any attempts at third party extradition.

2) Sweden is one of the few countries whose extradition treaty with the US flatly bans extradition for military or intelligence crimes, and has a consequence long been a place to where defectors and spies flee (the most famous being Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector during the Cold War period)

3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!

4) Sweden has the world's strongest whistleblower protections, so the point where it's not even legal to look for the source of a leak, let alone prosecute them for it.

5) While no country's judicial system is completely devoid of controversial cases (Sweden included), as a whole Sweden has one of the world's highest rankings on judicial fairness according to the peer-reviewed World Justice Project. They actually use it as an example of fairness when discussing how other countries can improve.

6) Assange himself thought so much of Sweden that he was applying for a residence permit there and repeatedly called Sweden his "shield". Funny how Sweden instantly became evil US lackeys the instant he was investigated for rape, isn't it?

Ok, as trial here:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/a... .. and not covering everyone.

There is precisely one case you're referring to. A decade and a half ago. And they weren't surrendered to the US, they were surrendered to Egypt via the US. After receiving bogus information from Egypt that the two illegal immigrants weren't legitimate asylum seekers but were rather convicted terrorist fugitives and a signed pledge that they wouldn't be tortured (Egypt promptly broke the pledge after they arrived). Here's the aftermath of that:

1) It turned into one of the biggest judicial scandals in Swedish history, receiving widespread protest and condemnation.
2) It led to a reform of not just Swedish but EU-wide extradition law, making it so that a mere promise of not torturing isn't enough, the country has to have a track record of not torturing.
3) The victims were offered by Sweden a large financial compensation package and Swedish residence.
4) Swedish attitudes against the US rendition program (which had worked in conjunction with Egypt on that case) that in 2006 outright had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to break into a CIA plane to get the proof they needed to shut down the extradition program through Swedish airspace, creating a major diplomatic incident between the two countries. And how do we know about this incident? Why, Wikileaks of course!

There's a reason why Assange was applying for a Swedish residence permit and moving Wikileaks' base of operations to Sweden when the incidents he's anklagad for occurred. No country has a spotless record, but Sweden has among the highest ranked judicial systems on Earth. Sweden has the world's best whistleblower protections and one of the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe, flatly forbidding extradition for intelligence or military crimes (which is why, for example, the US couldn't get Edward Lee Howard, the most damaging CIA defector of the Cold War). Assange repeatedly referred to Sweden as his "shield". Funny how Sweden suddenly turned from "shield" to "evil US lackey" when he faced accusations of rape, isn't it? Just ignoring the fact that, if surrendered to Sweden, both the UK *and* Sweden would be able to block an extradition to the US (under EU law on surrender of fugitives), while he had no problem being in the UK with only the UK between him and the US.

Again, funny how that all works.

Here is the courts exact decision that says exactly the same.

On page 2 the description of what he is accused of is the quote I have been giving you all along, and only that.

And you can see in no way does the court accept the "fact" that all rapes in Sweden are by immigrant - even the accused politician doesn't claim that.

I understand that you were misled by an untrustworthy source. But here is the actual court document.

I know each time the Assange story comes up you like to jump on it because the whole thing is personal for you (I haven't forgotten the last time you lost the plot on the issue, don't worry), but you seem to be making things up that aren't even there, which is a new low even for you. The story states very clearly that he was convicted in absentia, not simply that he was simply awaiting an appeal when he died, using Swedish translations of common words like "prosecute" doesn't add weight to your case by the way, it just makes you look even more desperate in your argument.

"And the British court system has at every level ruled Assange to be in a state equivalent to charged under the British legal system."

What the British court has ruled is that he can be extradited under the extremely lax checks of the European Arrest Warrant, something which is a major bone of contention in the UK and has been the target of much political preference for removal by MPs and precisely because it's such an utterly stupid piece of law in the first place. Pretending stupid law somehow adds weight to your overriding bias that Assange is a rapist is another example of your further highlighting the stupidity of your argument.

"But do you somehow know more about Swedish and British law..."

What I know is that not all these things are in agreement, so to try and stack them together to add weight to your argument is again, a further example of the weakness of your argument. I know for example that the prosecutor your refer to when stating her case in British court actually admitted that Assange could indeed be interviewed and charged here under the MLA framework (exactly like they did for this guy in Serbia: http://www.expressen.se/nyhete...), but simply insisted that she be able to do so in person in Sweden regardless.

What I also know is that whilst I may not be a professor of Swedish law, that professors of Swedish law also completely disagree with you, so your appeal to authority fallacy fails miserably in the face of a similar but opposite appeal to authority:

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/a...

Another thing I know is that the British courts regularly get such human rights issues wrong, they spent 10 years restricting the liberties of Abu Qatada only for him to be found innocent when he finally got to Jordan, and there have been many other cases where British courts got such issues wrong. The idea you're pushing that they consistently get such issues right, and aren't ever swayed by politics is demonstrable false, again, as in the Abu Qatada case. The British justice system is imperfect and easily manipulated by politics, in fact, the whole reason we have a Supreme Court is because politicians wanted an overriding court with a politically appointed judge panel precisely so that politics could play a part in justice, which is yet one more thing that shows how utterly laughable your appeal to authority fallacy is in this respect.

So Rei, I think you should accept what you accepted last time this discussion came up, that this issue is one that is too personal for you, and that in Rei land a man accused is a man guilty is a man convicted is not how things should work in the real world. In the real world we like justice and due process, if that isn't being followed, which it isn't - because the Swedish prosecution are insisting on avoiding processes that could resolve this issue fairly and objectively, then there's a problem.

I really could not care if Assange is found guilty or not, I have no presumption of innocence unlike your presumption and insistence of guilt, I think there's a fair chance he may well be guilty all the same. I appreciate some of the things he has talked about and some of his goals, but that's by the by, I appreciated some of the things Rolf Harris did but it doesn't change the fact it's all overshadowed b

Sure I've been.

9+3 months may be correct here to. I don't know exactly.

I don't live in California.

The bottom one here says newly built. The one I've been in hasn't looked like that. Each cow have their spot here to but at least it's bright and looks rather clean:
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/halland/Sv/lantbruk-och-landsbygd/lantbruk/utbildning-och-radgivning/Pages/Okad_djurvalfard.aspx
Maybe not as good as the Californian one but still pretty good.

I can't find any good pictures because googling for the Swedish word for farmyard mostly brings up a bunch of kid toys and what not.

But the ones I'm used to seeing are things similar though maybe a little bigger than this:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Estlandssvensk_bondg%C3%A5rd_p%C3%A5_Nuck%C3%B6_i_augusti_1993..jpg
Which is rather small scale. And old. Maybe in this case bigger is better rather than the opposite.

The brightness here seem more correct to what I would expect:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article16233191.ab
http://www.expressen.se/kvp/trillingar-i-baset-pa-bondgard-i-knislinge/
http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/images/news_images/3762/2372613_520_292.jpg

This is about what I typically would expect from a Swedish farm yard:
http://www.expressen.se/noje/hanna-mjolkar-efter-karleken/

These of similar style to what you linked actually seem like a better idea, at least if the interior looks like this:
http://www.cover-all.se/djurstallar.htm

I don't know if something such would be used during winter time to or not. I guess it's a pain to heat it up. Very little insulation and huge space?

Guess newer is better:
http://www.soderasensmiljoforbund.se/Tillstaandspliktig-djurhaallning.htm

And I guess maybe those ugly closed sheds actually may be better because they are newer, still look rather boring to me:
http://gunnarodsgard.skanemejerier.se/?p=2927

This is more similar to the one you linked to:
http://www.tectum.se/stalbyggnader/lantbruk/

This was a weird picture:
http://www.metro.se/nyheter/52-kor-dog-blixten-slog-ner-i-stangsel/Objhjz!17_3854-45/
It's cattle who has gone towards the fence during a lightning storm in Uruguay but then the lightning hit the fence and killed 52 of them.

Ã-rebro is 59Â 16â 26.2â N, 15Â 12â 48.1â E

Right in the middle of Hudson bay would be the same amount to the north over in north america.

This guy is wanted by Swedish law, is not wanted by the US. This trope of Sweden being the next repressive police state is absurd.

The Pirate Bay raid was done per request from the White House.
Sweden had no particular interest in taking the Pirate Bay down before that request since the Swedish prosecutor had concluded that the Pirate Bay probably didn't break Swedish law.

I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?

It's not so much "being in Sweden", it's "being in the hands of Swedish authorities". He's also worked quite hard to stay out of the hands of U.K. authorities. I think it's safe to say he doesn't want to be the corpus in the habeas of any US ally.

Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

...and other experts disagress. Even if that is true, it still doesn't explain why they're not willing to guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

According to what I have read, for example here http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2151&artikel=4387324 the OP is not really correct. 1. Germany has had this system running since 2009. 2. Denmark will start using it from April 2011. 3. Sweden is just looking at having this kind of a solution. And for all three, it is / will be only complimentary to regular stamps.

If you can read it:

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1646&artikel=4311500

The child porn filter was started in Sweden in 2005 (1), and it has several times been used to block The Pirate Bay already, and it will be done again (2). Sweden prides itself with no censorship but ask Wikileaks and see what they think about it.(3)

(1) http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=622590
(2) http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/press_release_swedish_police_shuts_down_pirate_bay_again
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Sweden

Another swede here. Parent is completely right, but despite all this, IPRED has become mostly toothless in fighting individual filesharers. There is another old law that says that information about who has what IP has to be thrown away when it's not neccesary anymore (most people have dynamic IPs I believe), and ISPs (even the larger ones) have started removing logs in compliance with this law, so when they get an IPRED inquiry they can just answer "we don't know".

Thanks to this, though, the police has complained that they can't trace communication in real crimes anymore (in swedish), meaning it's not just ineffective but damaging. The data retention directive would change this, of course, but with the pirate movement, we might be able to evade it.