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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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?
"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.