Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange To Be Extradited To Sweden
An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost his challenge against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault. The 39-year-old Australian computer expert, who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website, is wanted in relation to claims made by two WikiLeaks volunteers last August."
He's not lost yet, he will be appealing against extradition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I also wondered about this - maybe its something to do with the informal arrangement between the US and Sweden that he leaked before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html
(sorry for linking to telegraph - came up first on google and I'm lazy!)
D
Actually you are way off base. UK has a storied history of standing against US extradition requests. Sweden not so much. Swedish prosecutors have also substantiated Assange's claim by stating that they would extradite to a foreign nation for a greater crime. Thirdly, although Sweden has very strict rape laws, CONVICTION rates are the lowest in the world. So in conclusion, You have spewed forth words masquerading as facts. You fool no one but yourself. Good luck with your delusions.
In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant acts).
If the UK wouldn't extradite him to the US directly, there's really no reason to believe that Sweden would somehow have the power to do anything, since the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.
It amazes me that people here just don't get the fact that Assange has no case. If you actually read the ruling (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/index), you'll see that not only legally did he have very little to actually complain about, but his own defense lawyer basically lied to the court.
So go ahead, rant about big government and scary oppression all you want, but it's completely irrelevant to this case. Britain and Sweden are members of the European Union. One of the major benefits of the EU is the easing of border restrictions. You can cross from France to Germany, for example, without a passport. Citizens of one EU country can legally work in any other EU country. However, this runs both ways. You can move freely between EU countries as an EU citizen, but so can the law. That's the whole point of a European Arrest Warrant. That's why Assange has no case. It's got nothing about the US, nothing about him...and all about the law.
In case you didn't get it: every single point of Assange's defense was demolished by the judge. Now, you're probably going to say "well, of course, the judge was in on it too", but read the ruling. He allegedly committed a crime in Sweden. He may well be innocent, but that's completely irrelevant. This hearing had absolutely nothing to do about his guilt, and everything to do about whether Sweden is legally able to extradite people in another EU country for crimes they are wanted in connection with. And there's not question that Sweden has that right under EU law.
I'll say it once more: read the ruling I linked to above. Assange's legal defense was very bad, and never stood a chance. It's not about people out to get him, it's about a terrible legal team
.
No charges have actually been raised against him. The UK judge ignored that awkward point, as did you.
The US Constitution does not permit **any** ex post facto laws. Therefore nothing Assange has done to date is actionable under the SHIELD Act.
If Assange is smart, he'll publicly retire from Wikileaks now. Once he's gone, he won't have any links to it that would make it worthwhile to extradite him because a federal judge would just laugh at the DoJ if they actually try to prosecute him under the SHIELD Act for anything he's done so far.
Yup. It's one of many relics from Tony Blair's policy of doing anything for the U.S. in the hopes of receiving the diplomatic equivalent of pity sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
Treason in all but name.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
If the US gov't declares him an enemy combatant, or terrorist, they can detain him indefinitely without ever charging him with anything, essentially giving him a death sentence in prison (since living in gitmo isn't known for it's long survival rates).
So while that's true if he's under US law, don't think for even an 1/8th of a second that this would run through traditional US courts. This has been made impossible to challenge basically because of how they've set up enemy combatant/terrorist.
Also, this isn't even a criminal punishment in sweden with 1yr of jailtime, which is a requirement of extradition.
The definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more liberal than in the UK (or US, for that matter). I think the charge is something along the lines of "having sex without a barrier protection method on the assumption that the parties involved do not sleep around and then subsequently finding out that at least one does sleep around, thus increasing the risk of STDs to the injured party".
Oddly, I wasn't aware that you could be extradited from the UK to face a charge for something that isn't illegal in the UK - I think they're trying (and succeeding, so far) to peg it onto a "sexual assault" charge
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
The trial can be held in camera in Sweden, the court can decide to publish nothing but the judgement (none of the evidence) and the UK judge deciding upon extradition is ok with that, citing that trials involving juveniles can be embargoed in the UK, and the Swedes just have a different idea of what needs to be made public.
So: that there will be a Swedish trial doesn't mean justice will be seen to be done.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
The definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more liberal than in the UK (or US, for that matter). I think the charge is something along the lines of "having sex without a barrier protection method on the assumption that the parties involved do not sleep around and then subsequently finding out that at least one does sleep around, thus increasing the risk of STDs to the injured party".
It's not, and it's not. Assange has been charged with rape, and the allegations include the use of force to overcome resistance.
Basically, Assange's lawyers have made up a lot of shit about this case, and people like you are eating it up.
Oddly, I wasn't aware that you could be extradited from the UK to face a charge for something that isn't illegal in the UK - I think they're trying (and succeeding, so far) to peg it onto a "sexual assault" charge
Again, your whole premise here is false.
Are you adequate?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/meet-the-people-who-want-julian-assange-whacked.ars
http://news.change.org/stories/brits-arrest-assange-us-politicians-seek-to-hang-him
http://www.tomchambless.com/2010/12/01/fox-analyst-mike-huckabee-wants-to-execute-julian-assange-but-let-murderers-go-free/
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/julian-assange-pentagon-072910
You presented a very specific list of acts your government needs to commit before you concede that it may rightfully scare people. I will instead offer "a German citizen who was kidnapped in Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, flown to Afghanistan, interrogated and tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on Terror, and then released". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_al-Masri
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns