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."

19 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 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::
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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!
14. 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?
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
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.
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: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.