Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle
arisvega writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has begun his court battle against extradition from the UK to Sweden. He faces allegations of sexual assault against two women, which he denies. Mr Assange, 39, argues Swedish prosecutors had no right to issue a warrant for his arrest because he has not yet been charged with any offences. At the extradition hearing, in London's Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, his lawyers are also challenging the move on human rights grounds. Mr Assange's legal team, led by Geoffrey Robertson QC, argues that if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US, or even Guantanamo Bay, to face separate charges relating to the publication of secret documents by Wikileaks."
or even Guantanamo Bay
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
First of all, he's not going to get sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Do you have any idea how big of a shit-storm would result from the US trying to press charges? It's common knowledge that the man didn't even commit a crime (minus whatever might have happened with those two women). He's just realized that due process doesn't apply to celebrities, and in this case it's not to his advantage.
Is it me or this guy gets all the attention that should instead be devoted to the leaks' content? I bet most people following assange' ascention to stardom don't even read wikileaks.
Do you D?
Only so that this gold plated hypocrite and his travelling circus become someone else's problem rather than wasting police and court time in the UK any longer. There is zero chance of the swedes extraditing him - if there was a good enough case the US would have applied to the UK for this - so his teenage fanboys can relax.
If the US were trying to extradite Assange to put him in Guantanamo, why would there be a need to wait on his appearance in Sweden. The UK is just as likely to allow that extradition as Sweden. His lawyers have come up with an excellent straw man.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
Hey, remember the old days when slashdot was a site about Linux, tech and nerds for nerds (like the tagline said)??
I barely do these days. No its seems its wikileaks tripe, and other left wing political ramblings.
I hope he stays in either UK or Sweden and never gets escorted to US. If you ask me, last president in charge there was Bill Clinton and I don't know who is in charge since then.
839*929
if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US
Why would they think that? Do they think he did something wrong?
Although I'm sadly perfectly prepared to believe that the two people in Sweden may have been 'encouraged' to make their claims, I'm not sure that Swedish extradition conditions are more defavourable to Assange than those of the UK. Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three
Assange does seem to have a point; if he is not (yet) subject to formal charges, why should he be forced to return to Sweden for questioning?
He left with their agreement. The laws they want to extradite him on are nonexistent in the UK and therefore there is no cause to extradite. It's fairly clear and doesn't have anything to do with "If you don't like the laws of the country don't visit it" or "Ignorance of the law is never innocence." unless you take that last one as the Sweden's legal system not knowing the law...
... and some chick asks him what he does for a living. He answers, "I'm a computer geek." She replies, "Oh, wow, that turns me on! Go to the restroom and get some condoms, and then we'll go back to my place!" If any Slashdotter posted something like that, the responses would be, "Yeah, right, in your dreams!"
So then three days later, he goes to another bar, and a different chick hits on him. The whole story seems quite apocryphal.
If this story is true, it sounds like Assange must be as charming as George Clooney and must be a skilled martial artist with nunchucks, which he needs to beat back the women folk.
I speculate that it went down like this:
CIA boss: "This WikiLeaks guy has really shoved a weed up our ass. What can we do?"
CIA lackey: "Oh, we have a pile of Hawaiian shellfish poison hidden in the cellar! If we prick him with a needle of that stuff, he will be dead before he hits the ground!"
CIA boss: "Hmmm. That sounds too drastic, and would raise suspicions. Can't we deck him with a honey trap?"
CIA lackey: "I'll call Stockholm."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'd be really surprised to find out that the UK was more resistant to US pressure than Sweden.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
I find more and more that I don't care anymore about wikileaks.
From the information that has come from that site, hype has been the biggest impact. The information that has been released has not been bad enough for much to happen
Journalists getting killed? Yup, its a war zone and they were walking with people who had guns and were known terrorists. Guess what, you have a chance in a war zone to die, it happened. Sucks, but true.
Telegrams between countries talking bout each other? Yup, and it turned out to be perhaps just as entertaining as soap operas. It read like any high school social order, and in the end it means nothing.
The bank information and Swiss bank account info would be interesting to quite a few people. What would happen though is the rich would pay money, and that would be it until the next leak.
Seriously... the only thing affected by all this is time and money, nothing else. In fact, I dare say thats what secrets do, they cut corners and prevent monetary retribution. Then once found, "whoops, mah bad... let me slip you a few million to make it go away".
I don't think he could make himself look guiltily if he tried. When you resort to objecting extradition to a neutral country because you might end up in Guantanamo, you look like hi're grasping at straws because you're guilty, whether or not it's try. It would be one thing if he were being sent to Poland or another country who was actually involved in that stuff, but Sweden? C'mon....
May be to trade this on best prison in Egypt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement
Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. It is considered by some a form of psychological torture.[1] It is usually cited as an additional measure of protection from the criminal.
It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.
Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the 'hole', 'lockdown', the 'SHU' (pronounced 'shoe') - an acronym for security housing unit, or the 'pound'; and in British English as the 'block' or the 'cooler'.[2][3]
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
then he might be extradited. Doesn't that indicate that the proper place for this argument would be any future extradition hearing in Sweden?
maybe he should have thought of that before pissing off most of the world
not that I care anymore about this "much of nothing" drama... just sayin
The whole US/Guantanamo/"Enemy Combatant" stuff aside, how normal is it for people who haven't been charged, to be forcefully extradited as a "witness?" Does this happen all the time, or are UK and Sweden treating Assange as a special case?
And if that's all there is to it, what's to stop Sweden from getting their shit together and charging him? Can't they just follow the normal process and still get what they want? In US, our government will charge someone with a crime, at the drop of a hat with even the mildest suspicion. They can always dismiss the charge later. What's so special here?
The naive ex-president wanted to participate to a gala evening in Geneva, Switzerland, on Feb. 12th. Under the risk of being arrested for violation of international treaties about torture, his visit has been canceled today.
The US media like to give as motive threats of protesters...
I don't give a shit anymore. Julian risked his own life putting his face on the actions of Wikileaks. Julian risked his own life when he decided to do what he did with those women. Julian risked his own life when he decided to disengage from the world and require his capture.
Fuck him. I don't care what he's done. He fucked up. All the right things in the world can never make the fuckups OK.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Because he's just George W. Bush with better speech-giving skills.
Hasn't been the 'block' or the 'cooler' since the 1950's!
It's either 'the seg' (Segregation unit) or 'on the rule' (Rule 43/46(?) of prison regs that allow voluntary/compulsory segregation- usually used for 'vulnerable prisoners' eg. sex offenders).
But Assange is Australian, so wouldn't that mean that UK citizens would react similarly to the Swedes?
Not really. The UK is a limited member of the EU, but Australia is a part of the british empire; the commonwealth. It's basically still regarded as a british colony by many brits and there is some truth to that as members of the commonwealth are automatically granted extra privileges in other member countries. For example, Assange could work in the UK without a visa and if he stayed in the country for a year, could vote in the elections. It is why in Canada there is a high commissioner from the UK instead of an ambassador.
I think it is great that someone is finally calling the US on human rights violations. I think it is ridiculous that the USA preaches to places like China and other human rights violators, while at the same time threatening to jail a journalist for printing information freely. Not to mention the whole no rule of law, torturing, and imprisonment without trial, etc...
Do as I say, and not as I do!
It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.
You can order Suicide Resistant fixtures right from Amazon.
Cool, eh?
assange needs to be extradited to Sweden to face the sexual assault charges and then extradited to the US to be held accountable for undermining
national security.
he's an out of control thug with a vendetta against the United States and needs to be rendered powerless.
Guantanamo is a good resting place.
All you morons who live in the US and support assange are only able to do so because the United States is a free country and we have freedoms other countries don't.
Try being against party lines in Iran or China or better yet move to any of many dictatorial regimes and see how you fare there.
Your leaving would make the US a better place.
And it doesn't have any "gotcha" clauses changing its effects on vs. off US soil.
The reason the US Constitution doesn't always apply off US soil is the same reason why it doesn't always apply on US soil: it's just a piece of paper which doesn't enforce itself. And if you can phrase your excuses for contradicting it in ways people want to believe ("Liberals, the Commerce Clause means we get to buy everyone puppies!" "Conservatives, none of that due-process, no-torture stuff applies to terrifying foreigners!"), then you don't need to worry about anyone else enforcing it either.
This is probably the real problem: The people in the military don't really want to let their catches go. I am guessing that the people in Gitmo are die-hard enemies of the US that simply cannot be charged with anything because of lack of evidence. Everyone knows that they are probably nasty characters, but there is no legal justification to hold them.
It is sort of like arresting Al Cappone. You know you have someone who belongs behind bars, but the rules of the game say you cannot hang on to him without a conviction. Of course, they need to be released, simply for moral reasons, but this doesn't change the fact that the military people who grabbed them want to keep them out of circulation because they think it makes the world a safer place.
The irony is that to make the world a BETTER place it, probably needs to be a less safe place. The right road isn't the easy road.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Now I would like to repost the comments by arbed12 from a Swedish news site (thelocal.se):
Questions (not being asked by the mainstream media):
The 100 page police protocol now on the internet is the complete prosecution file as it existed on 18 Nov when it was given to Assange's lawyer (in Swedish) by Marianne Ny. Her letter to the Australian High Commission (20 Dec) mentions "a small number of documents" held back that have been verbally described to the lawyer, so this must be more or less the whole thing.
My question: I thought a European Arrest Warrant could only be issued for offences that carry a minimum 1 year sentence. I think this applies to only 1 of the 4 offences detailed - the one concerning Miss W being "asleep". Miss W's witness statement in the protocol is unfinished and unsigned. So, has this EAW been raised on the basis of allegations that have not been formally made (ie. no signed witness statement)?
Alternatively, has it been raised on the basis of the hearsay evidence of friends, family and work colleagues about this incident given by Witness B (statement taken by telephone on 8 Sept), Witness D (telephone statement 13 Sept) and Witnesses G, H and I (telephone statements 6, 22 and 27 Oct respectively)?
More questions: where is Miss W's full witness statement (either recorded police interview or properly finished and signed document)? There's been plenty of time to obtain it between 20 Aug and 18 Nov surely? Why hasn't this been given to the defence?
Where is Miss A's full witness statement? Subsequent to the telephone statement taken on 21 August, there has been at least one opportunity to do a full recorded police interview (when she gave the police the torn, used condom on 25 August). Again, there has been plenty of time between 21 Aug and 18 Nov to obtain a formal statement. Why hasn't this been given to the defence?
Apparently, police forensics were unable to find any DNA (male or female) on a torn, supposedly used, condom. How is this even possible? To me, the lack of any DNA indicates the condom has never even been worn and therefore, potentially, has been presented by the complainant as false evidence. Why have most reports in the mainstream media about the latest leak (from an incredibly porous police investigation) not mentioned this detail at all?
Finally, one for Nick Davies of the Guardian, who wrote a highly prejudicial article on 18 December based on a 68 page police report (he says he was given "unauthorised" access to a few days previously. Given the police file on the internet now is 100 pages long, does this mean Davies' report did not include Witness E and Witness F's statements (lengthy recorded police interviews done on 20 Sept) by two Swedish journalists? It's the only thing I can see that might account for the difference in page count. If so, why not - they were available by 18 December. And why did he choose to publish an article based on only one side of the story? In a rape case? Would he consider that good journalistic practice? Or a disgrace to his profession?
One more thing:
Witness I's statement is very troubling. First, she doesn't seem to live where her statement indicates she does and, second, in it the police ask her about the SMS messages with Miss W that
Because Obama is not the dictator of the United States but must faithfully execute[1] the laws passed by the Congress when they are within the power of Congress to regulate. As it happens, Congress has the explicit power to determine what happens to captures[2] during a time of war.
You make an excellent point. The president has very few powers. But it brings up and interesting point of accountability: If the congress is responsible for holding prisoners at GitMo, couldn't they be individually charged with conspiring to unlawfully detain people? The director of the FBI (if he was inclined to) could close GitMo by sending FBI agents to scoop up all the members of congress who voted to keep GitMo open, since it would fall under federal jurisdiction to prosecute. They could probably be charged with a hole slew of charges designed to jail kidnappers and human traffickers.
It would unleash and unholy shitstorm in DC for a good 6 months, but it would get GitMo closed.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet.
Do you see any country volunteering to accept these prisoners?
Do you see any state governor wanting to see them tried or imprisoned in his state?
Just as likely? No, that is simply not the case.
You see both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights which explicitly prohibits extraditing people to any country when there is a possibility that he could be sentenced to death, tortured or suffer bodily harm.
The US is one of those few Western countries that continues to sentence people to death, not a single country in Europe does that.
Actually the conditions are exactly identical.
Since both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights they are explicitly forbidden from extraditing a person to any country where he may face the death penalty.
It does not have to be definite or clear, but if there are doubts and he could possibly be tried as a spy he would absolutely have to be protected from extradition to the US.
They did not ignore the treaty, Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. This is line with the treaty, the result was not. Case closed.
Once they're outside Sweden it's hard for the Swedes to do anything about it. I doubt it was done in bad faith, we take it very seriously indeed. However in hindsight you could say the Egyptians could not to be trusted. I doubt they'll make that mistake again.
Just a quick follow-up, Sweden was convicted in an international human rights court. How's that untouchable? How's that no court case?
The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the Swedish state, they were however not allowed to return. Not that they should have been in Sweden to begin with as they were foreign citizens, suspected terrorists and judged a threat to the country even by the international court.
Yeah I'm a geek. I've been using computers since I was 7. I play a lot of video games, not as much of a stigma now as it used to be, and oh yeah I also read a lot. I've got some other things going against me. I like to speak in clear English, American English for what it is worth, and I sometimes get pedantic about things that really don't matter in a conversation.
All that being said I am pretty lucky. I've been called a pretty boy, I played football, I can drink and hang out with guys decently well, and my point in all of this is that I've been also pretty lucky with the lady's.
I don't say this to brag and in fact I never even talk about this kinda crap even in 'teh locker room' unless pressed by other guys for some reason that I've yet to understand fully. But rather to just try and give some crediblity to the fact of what I'm about to say next.
Sex is not always the ok dear let us do it. Assume the position! Right-o! Let me just get this condom on and we shall bang. Oh, yes, good stuff, you enjoying yourself too dear? Glad to hear it. Oh, there I go. Ok, let us both take showers and go back to watching TV.
I've gotten groped by both men and women in bars. I've gotten into strange situations where some girl is crying and yet she is giving me a blowjob. I've watched the lust in some poor girls eyes for me when she is way out of my league, and at times been horny enough to let her do me. I've woken up in a strange bed with some girl I dimly remember and yet we do it again because dammit sex feels good!
Not only could I go on but I'm not even 1/2 the player of some people. My stories are often just fist bump moments rather than whoa dog, wtf!? And as such this whole thing about Assange feels so weak. If this guy had not pissed off the most rich and powerful people in the world would this even be an issue?
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Sorry but I just DONT CARE what the Swedish Prosecution bleats now. Robertson never goes out on a limb, he never makes a statement without having done the homework first. The Swedish 'authority' in this case is outside of their bounds.
Aside: Read 'The Justice Game' by Geoffrey Robertson, one of his older journals. A fascinating account of just how dodgy governments really are.
I'm pretty sure he answers something more like "I'm a spy toppling oppressive regimes in war torn countries to save little brown kids and puppies, and, this is a secret I'm only going to share with you, I sparkle in sunlight"
Good luck Jules!
Read that W-baby has to stay home in TX cause he might be arrested in SWZ.
Now if we could get Barak-O renderd into a 3x3x3 ft. cell Solitary, at GITMO for 48 months ..... :))
-308
See, you've drunk from the Kool-Aid.
Remember that the US paid real money for those Afghans turning in "terrorists". What could possibly go wrong?
I think we can say that there's some probability that there are some real terrorists among the GITMO "prisoners". But we can be almost certain that there are a lot of poor souls who just have been victims of neighbor's greed and US idiocy (who might be convinced by now that terrorism is the way).
But what makes me really sad is, as others say: US, what has beecome of you?
A bunch of poor people scared of their own shadow? Please, do show us otherwise!
Nintendo,Consoles,Games,Accessories,XBOX,Wii,PS3,PSP,mwgames
http://www.mwgames.com.au/
The United Nations' Human Rights Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority".
It only became illegal when the guarantees failed otherwise it would have been legal.
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Where is your statistical evidence that this occurs routinely? I see the opposite.
The UK couldn't legally extradite anyone to America if it meant them facing the death penalty or torture, because of the human rights act.