Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday February 7, 2011 @04:26AM from the let-the-battle-begin dept.

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."

36 of 479 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What does this say... by MightyYar · 2011-02-07 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:What does this say... by spun · 2011-02-07 05:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Why do you think it is that ridiculous that someone might think the US would send an enemy to Guantanamo?
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
2. Re:What does this say... by gstoddart · 2011-02-07 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  ORLY? When the Wall Street Journal is saying that he should be tried under the Espionage Act ... I don't think Guantanamo is exactly a big huge stretch to imagine.
  Maybe that reputation is based on things like the CIA kidnapping people in foreign countries to be whisked away to "unofficial" places?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:What does this say... by c0d3g33k · 2011-02-07 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'd say that the existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility (set up outside U.S. soil to avoid the law) and the fact that people can arbitrarily be sent there to rot for years without trial speaks volumes about the current commitment of the United States Government to the ideals on which it was founded. In my youth the place to be feared was the Soviet Gulag. Now people fear Guantanamo Bay. I weep for what the government that represents this country has become, and am sad that my father (Vietnam vet) and his father (WW2 vet and survivor of the Bataan Death March) fought in vain for a government that has no respect for the ideas that brought it into existence. What the hell happened?
4. Re:What does this say... by Lord+Byron+II · 2011-02-07 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
5. Re:What does this say... by c0d3g33k · 2011-02-07 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed. The obvious answer is that there is some massive resistance from within the government bureaucracy that is making it a difficult task. Or he learned something after taking office and getting "commander-in-chief" security clearance that changed his mind. I'm inclined to think that it's just the former.
6. Re:What does this say... by Nadaka · 2011-02-07 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed. The obvious answer is that there is some massive resistance from within the government bureaucracy that is making it a difficult task. Or he learned something after taking office and getting "commander-in-chief" security clearance that changed his mind. I'm inclined to think that it's just the former.
  Option 3: He was always a devious snake and never intended to live up to his campaign promises, just like every other politician.
7. Re:What does this say... by Wrath0fb0b · 2011-02-07 05:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
  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. So blaming Obama here is somewhat ridiculous as he is simply not in an office charged with
  So far, Congress has forbidden the Executive from moving detainees from Guantanamo[3,4] by huge supermajority votes (90-6 in the Senate, for instance). The actual statutory language[5] is quite clear (quoted below). So if you want Obama to close Gitmo then you are essentially asking him to ask in open defiance of the law.
  
  SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
  None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2011 may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
  (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
  (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.
  [1] Article II, Section 1.
  [2] Article I, Section 8.
  [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
  [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/us/politics/23gitmo.html
  [5] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111aSU9NC::
8. Re:What does this say... by eln · 2011-02-07 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He made sort of a halfhearted attempt at it toward the beginning of his presidency, but dropped it after a huge public outcry about the possibility of moving any of the prisoners to facilities in the mainland US. It didn't help that very few Congresspeople wanted to openly support the idea of having terrorists (even suspected terrorists) housed in prisons in their districts.
  
  There was also a lot of fear about what would happen if some of these people were given fair trials and actually found innocent. It was felt even the possibility of such a thing was too politically dangerous to take chances with.
  
  It was one of the first of many examples of this president preferring to alienate his base in order to maintain the naive hope that he could bridge the political divide in this country.
9. Re:What does this say... by c0d3g33k · 2011-02-07 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nah. That's too cliche. I've known enough people personally who actually *step up and try to make things better* - and fail to make everything better - to know that it's damned hard to change everything. If you really think that it's possible to promise massive political change and then actually make every promise come true (and anyone who doesn't is a devious snake), you're a deluded fool. The best that anyone can do, even at the level of POTUS, is to nudge things one way or the other and hope that some of it takes.
  If you think you can do better, then by all means step up and give it a go.
10. Re:What does this say... by HBI · 2011-02-07 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I dislike the guy but I think he just realized the domestic political realities that caused Bush to open the camp at Gitmo in the first place. NIMBY is one big issue. No one wants a trial near them, or incarcerations of known Muslim enemy combatants near them. It's not like a camp full of Germans in WWII, these guys haven't given up the desire to fight us. So you put it in Castro's backyard. Another issue is Federal court jurisdiction and pesky lawyers trying to interpose civilian authority over a fundamentally military matter. So you stick it in a purely military reservation overseas. It's about as good a solution as can be arrived at.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
11. Re:What does this say... by mcvos · 2011-02-07 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There was also a lot of fear about what would happen if some of these people were given fair trials and actually found innocent. It was felt even the possibility of such a thing was too politically dangerous to take chances with.
  They are being illegally imprisoned without trial because they might be found innocent? Justice in the US is truly dead.
12. Re:What does this say... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2011-02-07 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What truth? He engaged in espionage against the United States - that isn't in dispute.
  That is very much in dispute. Publishing leaked information that is a protected government secret is legal according to the courts, ala the Pentagon Papers. Unless there is some evidence that he conspired to help get those secrets in the first place, then he's probably in the clear according to US law, but in any case that is a huge point that IS in dispute, at best.
13. Re:What does this say... by spun · 2011-02-07 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are absolutely wrong. We sent people to gitmo with no evidence but a neighbor saying "Yeah, that's the guy." Maybe they didn't like him, maybe he had the same last name as a terrorist. Absolutely, without a doubt, there are innocent men in gitmo.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
14. Re:What does this say... by Will.Woodhull · 2011-02-07 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  NIMBY is only a small part of it.
  The remaining prisoners at Gitmo were put there through unlawful means. Under USA law, if they were to be brought to a fair trial the judge would have to let them walk. The evidence is that badly tainted by fucked up procedures that it would not be admissible.
  Bush and Cheney could have done a final solution to these problematic prisoners while they were in office; do it under the cover of the emergency provisions they granted themselves, or just do it under cover: move all the prisoners to a detention barge in Guantanamo Bay and then do like the battleship Maine... oh so sorry, what could have caused that bang? But Bush and Cheney lacked the political guts to finish what they had started, and now we have a mess that is impossible to clean up.
  
  --
  Will
15. Re:What does this say... by Hatta · 2011-02-07 06:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So far, Congress has forbidden the Executive from moving detainees from Guantanamo[3,4] by huge supermajority votes (90-6 in the Senate, for instance). The actual statutory language[5] is quite clear (quoted below).
  The statutory language is quite clear. They have not prohibited the closure of Guantanamo. They have not prohibited Obama from moving detainees from Guantanamo. They have prohibited him from using budgeted funds to move detainees to the US.
  There are any number of ways to deal with this. First, you could just unlock the doors, shut off the lights, and walk away. This option is free! Alternatively, he could find other ways to fund the closure of Guantanamo. Set up a collection plate and I'll donate.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
16. Re:What does this say... by Hope+Thelps · 2011-02-07 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No one is calling Assange a terrorist or a combatant of any form
  No one? I thought a number of people had, including the US vice president.
  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-a-high-tech-terrorist-biden/story-e6frg6so-1225973696881
  And didn't Sarah Palin say "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"
  http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/29/palin_hunt_down_assange
  Okay, she doesn't represent the US government like Biden does but she's still "someone" and has a definite following amongst the US populace.
  
  --
  To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
17. Re:What does this say... by morgauxo · 2011-02-07 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The US possesses a pretty big desert that is nobody's back yard. It also possesses islands big enough for a penitentiary that are US soil and yet in nobody's back yard.
18. Re:What does this say... by morgauxo · 2011-02-07 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  First.... This was the case before he ever made the promises so it doesn't change the fact that it was all BS.
  
  Second... If we ever had a president that actually had balls he would address the people and say... I promised you A, you voted for me.. The ball currently lies with congresspeople B-Z, they told me to go to hell, now go tell them what you want.
  
  Of course anybody with that kind of balls would never make it that far in politics. What I don't get though is why don't they grow them once they become president? It's a dead end job anyway. Since when do former presidents go back into office in some other position? I guess I could see waiting until a second term but that is no guarantee to get re-elected. Wouldn't it be better to go down in a one term blaze of glory making huge waves then be just another 8 year pansy?
19. Re:What does this say... by cdrguru · 2011-02-07 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Under the Geneva conventions enforced strictly, they should have been shot on the spot as non-uniformed combatants. POW status is only available to uniformed combatants. If you are trying to blend into the enemy civilian population you get shot, period.
  So the US didn't do that. Instead, we treated them as some kind of cross between a combatant and a criminal with neither status being correct or even really definable. So you can't prosecute them as criminals because they haven't really broken criminal laws. Certainly they haven't broken any laws in the places where they were captured. You might be able to make up some kind of justification for them being criminals because of "conspiracy" but it has pretty well been established so far that even that kind of a stretch isn't going to work.
  Treating them as a POW isn't going to work. The war isn't with Yemen or Afganistan or Islam. The war is with extremists that have linked a particularly vile form of Islam with the idea that they can reestablish the 12th century by fiat, explosives and death. There will never be a "winner" until they win because you can't really defeat a religion without wiping out all the adherents. If you can afford to take the really long view they are winning and are going to win in the end. It might take 200 years but they will eventually just out-populate the infidels. It is the way religions in the past have won wars and it works. Takes a really long time and uses up a lot of landscape and lives but it works.
  Turning these folks over to some state, somewhere hasn't proved to work - nobody really wants them. For most of them, their own country (Yemen) has denied them repatriation. So there is no "sending them home". They can either be kept in a secure location or they can be turned loose, probably only in the US considering nobody else seems to want them. Repeatedly, various groups in the US (like the US Congress) has said they are not wanted in the US under any circumstances, even confined to prisons.
  If there were any eligible islands, you might dump them there - but there are no truely remote islands anymore. You could give each one a handgun and put them down in Harlem and see how long they lasted. Probably not long, if there was any prior notice. I'm not sure there are any other options for these folks at all.
20. Re:What does this say... by gknoy · 2011-02-07 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What about the people kidnapped from places in Europe, that are not battlefields, or arrested in the US?
21. Re:What does this say... by gstoddart · 2011-02-07 08:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's an op-ed by senator Dianne Feinstein in the Wall Street Journal. Please let's keep things intellectually honest.
  OK, how about the State Department, or 'diplomatic sources', or Homeland Security?
  If we want to be intellectually honest, let's remember that the op-ed piece I cited was basically one of the highest results from Google, and that numerous sources have identified that the US could, in fact, be pondering trying him under the Espionage Act or somesuch. It's not like I pulled the notion out of my ass.
  There's no shortage of sources saying they'd like to be able to do that. It was all over the news in December when the news first broke.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Is it me by jerep · 2011-02-07 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Is it me by decipher_saint · 2011-02-07 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's the old song and dance
  "Hey look! A guy who started a website for SHARING SECRETS! Never mind the secrets over there..."
  
  --
  crazy dynamite monkey
2. Re:Is it me by hedwards · 2011-02-07 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is the problem. They didn't have enough evidence to charge him when he was in the country, but then after he left they changed their mind. Considering that there originally wasn't enough evidence to justify having him in for questioning, I don't think that you can really assume that this is going to be a fair trial. At this point even if he is guilty, any guilty verdict is going to look politically motivated because the process has been so botched.
3. Re:Is it me by artor3 · 2011-02-07 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The NY Times spent a few weeks going over the leaks' content, with the leaks as the front page story quite often. I suspect other respectable outlets did the same. The problem is more that most people get their news from cable TV, where real news always takes second billing to scandals, shootings, and abductions of pretty white girls.
  In fact, just to see how bad it was, I went over to CNN's website, where the title of this story is "Could Assange end up in Gitmo?" Typical of tabloid journalism, they take some outrageous and shocking headline, phrase it as a question (so that they can't be proven wrong), and rack up the page views. At least CNN gives the story a reasonably high booking. MSNBC is running with "Is Facebook the new Craigslist for hookers?" (there's that outrageous question again). And Fox's top story is "Did Google Exec Spark Egypt Revolt?" (yet another question, this time with an almost farcical suggestion).
Sweden and United Kingdom has similar laws by inpher · 2011-02-07 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sweden has laws that are similar to those in the UK, so I see very little extra risk for Assange to be extradited to USA if he is transferred or travels to Sweden. I would think that staying in a NATO member (like UK) would be more of a risk. Extradition for Criminal Offences in 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. [...] Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.
1. Re:Sweden and United Kingdom has similar laws by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2011-02-07 05:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sweden has laws that are similar to those in the UK, so I see very little extra risk for Assange to be extradited to USA if he is transferred or travels to Sweden.
  Factions of the Swedish government have been secretly and illegally collaborating with the United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Wikileaks itself. Thus, the laws on record may not be as important as you think. Second, politically speaking it would be difficult for the UK to ship a member of the commonwealth to the US under questionable legal circumstances, given the US's human rights record at the moment. The people that actually vote for the UK politicians would probably view that as just a little too close to home, as in making them afraid they too could be shipped away to be tortured. This would get the UK politicians kicked out of office.
  On the other hand, if the UK were to ship him to Sweden to face unrelated charges, then the Swedish were to extradite him (legally or illegally) then the UK politicians could claim they were duped and likely keep their jobs. Swedish politicians would be seen extraditing a foreigner messed up with intelligence agencies and potential criminal acts and again, probably keep their jobs.
  All of this is, of course, exceedingly unlikely, but that doesn't mean it is not possible. The argument that shipping him to Sweden could actually result in him being taken illegally by US intelligence, held outside the US, but by US agents, and denied basic human rights. This is the bed the US made and now we must sleep in it a while. There was no real risk in throwing the Guantanamo prisoners into our federal prisons and prosecuting them (aside from political risk). It was all part of the fear-mongering designed as electoral ploys. We threw away any pretense of honor and justice as principals of our government and now we are openly treated as treacherous and dishonorable and unable to be trusted to uphold even the most basic human rights according to treaties we helped write.
  Is Julian Assange taking advantage of the US's shitty world image? Most likely. Who's to blame for this? We are, for giving his lawyers so much ammunition.
Guantanamo by kenrblan · 2011-02-07 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Why be afraid of Sweden? by Bearhouse · 2011-02-07 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative

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?
Re:Hopefully he'll be extradited by spun · 2011-02-07 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wow. You really can't understand the difference between the secrets of a democratic government, and an individual citizen? How would releasing data about an individual help Wikileaks reach its stated goals?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Eh by spun · 2011-02-07 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is not the only thing we are doing to him, but yes, being held in solitary for long enough is definitely considered torture as it can lead to lasting psychological damage.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Indeed, G. Bush might have been arrested by Framboise · 2011-02-07 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...
Re:We can't extradite him because... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2011-02-07 05:52 · Score: 4, Informative

We can't extradite him because... then he might be extradited. Doesn't that indicate that the proper place for this argument would be any future extradition hearing in Sweden?
No. One of the considerations of an extradition hearing is the human rights protected by the country to which he would be extradited. Many countries, for example, have the right to life enshrined in the legal system and so refuse to extradite anyone to a country where they might be executed (like the US) if the crime they are to be tried for could result in execution. They certainly don't leave it up to the courts in the other country to decide if that person is deserving of execution. Likewise, countries with a poor record of following their own laws or properly investigating may not be places where a country is willing to extradite people. Elements of the Swedish government have recently been discovered to have been illegally collaborating with US intelligence, thus bringing into doubt whether or not Mr. Assange's human rights would be adequately protected by the Swedish government.
It is absolutely important for a government to look at the protections for human rights and state of the legal system in another country before deporting a person there. I mean would you like to be deported to a country to face possibly spurious charges when that country has a history of collaborating with other nations that make people magically and illegally vanish to secret prisons to be tortured? If it was your extradition trial wouldn't you want the government of the nation you're in to look at the potential of your human rights being thrown out the window by the legal processes of the other country?
Because by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-02-07 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet.
Because he's just George W. Bush with better speech-giving skills.
Re:The right course of action by Znork · 2011-02-07 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

"I am guessing that the people in Gitmo are die-hard enemies of the US"
Well, if they weren't when they were rendered, one can imagine that a decade of illegal imprisonment of even the most innocent man can probably make them a bit miffed.
And even handing them a load of money as an apology might not be entirely optimal; some who might not find money of adequate value to replace ten years of life could end up donating the funds to terrorists...
It's that age old problem. Once you start really screwing people over some of them can't seem to take a joke. So in trying to make the world 'safer', it ends up being both a worse and less safe world.