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."

Comments

Appeal

[bbqsrc]

It can and will likely be appealed, leading it to drag out for much longer so the US finally has time to enact the SHIELD bill and have him extradited from Sweden. And the soap opera continues.

Re:Appeal

[JBMcB]

You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.

Re:Appeal

[bbqsrc]

I am aware of this, but it seems unlikely that they'd do it now due to the fact there's already extradition proceedings to Sweden.

Re:Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK does not extradite if they believe the person may be executed.
This is what Assange is fighting for, claiming that Sweden will extradite him to the us, where he will be executed. Therefore by proxy, The UK has gone against their policy.

Re:Appeal

[rainmouse]

You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.

After the fiasco of the Enron three being extradited to Texas and charged for crimes done in the UK against a UK bank then sentenced to jail over something that isn't even a crime in the UK, it is not likely to happen again. It is also worth noting that it is a staggeringly unfair, one-way extradition policy set up by a previous government and is likely to be repealed if challenged, especially in another political farce, double-dipped with political corruption like this whole Assange business is.

Re:Appeal

[Luckyo]

Extradition is so 20th century. Nowadays we send people on private vacations to Egypt with all expenses paid. Including burial.

Re:Appeal

[countertrolling]

That resort is temporarily closed for remodeling. However, there is a nice place down there in the tropics.

Re:Appeal

[mcvos]

I don't think politicians decide on extraditions, do they? It's a legal matter, and therefore decided by judges.

Re:Appeal

[Jaysyn]

Which would be a retroactive application of the law & unconstitutional.

Re:Appeal

[Darvin]

Extraditions can be cancelled by the Home Secretary.

Re:Appeal

[nomadic]

Does Assange really think he's going to be executed? That's kinda dumb. Hopefully it's just a ploy by his lawyers.

Re:Appeal

[inpher]

Nor does 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.[...]

Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

Re:Appeal

[fishbowl]

>This is what Assange is fighting for, claiming that Sweden will extradite him to the us, where he will be executed.

... Executed for some unspecified crime which he has not even been accused of?

Re:Appeal

[Alex Belits]

Since Wikileaks exists, US will claim that "crime" remains being in progress, and charge him with release of "secrets" after the law was passed.

Re:Appeal

[Will.Woodhull]

It doesn't matter whether Assange thinks he might be victimized by the USA or not.

What matters is that significant voices in USA politics have been publicly calling for the USA government to go after Assange. His lawyers have introduced that as evidence. The British court system has to accept that evidence or reject it on some evidentiary basis; it cannot be rejected because it sounds too far-fetched to be true.

I think the action of this lower court is appropriate. Since it knows that Assange has the means and the desire to appeal, it has taken this route to kick a thorny set of legal questions up the stairs, where a court with more appropriate authority can rule on the amount of risk that McCain, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and others represent to Assange's rights under British law.

The same applies to whether the arguments that: 1) he should not be extradited before he is charged with a crime, and 2) that he should not be extradited for behavior that is not recognized as criminal in any EU country other than Sweden. These are all heady matters that deserve the attention of a higher court, and the appropriate way to make that happen is through appeal.

Re:Appeal

[MachDelta]

It's ok, I hear the US army has a nice skydiving* tour over Iraq.

*Parachute not supplied.

Re:Appeal

[Wyatt Earp]

There is as much of a chance of you being executed for that post as there is for Assange to be executed in the US.

There have been three civilians executed by the Federal Government in the United States since 1963

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Recent_civilian_executions

Mass murder and terrorism, multiple murder and rape and murder of a soldier is what it takes for the Feds to execute someone.

Re:Appeal

[Kjellander]

Nor does 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.[...]

Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

Yeah, that's smart. Looking at what they say and not what they do.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

Re:Appeal

[EdgeyEdgey]

Only 10 days allowed for appeal.

Re:Appeal

[JBMcB]

So what's stopping the US from trying? The specter of the UK possibly not extraditing him to the US? You think the US government would care?

Re:Appeal

[tripleevenfall]

The US has not executed anyone for espionage since the Rosenbergs, and the military hasn't executed anyone in 50 years or so. There is no reason whatever to believe that even if Assange were put on trial by the United States that he would be executed. Wikileaks' problem is that they had a fame-seeking public figurehead. It's too bad his ego brought the whole house down.

Re:Appeal

[Knuckles]

Yeah because that would NEVER happen in the US, Guantanamo is the pinnacle of the rule of law!

Re:Appeal

[Jaysyn]

Such a law already has legal precedence against it (USA vs. New York Times).

Re:Appeal

[fishbowl]

When you can identify one individual who has been extradited to the US, without even being accused of a crime, and subsequently executed, then I may give some credence to Assange's position.

There are civil rights issues and certainly political issues with the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but there is no connection to Assange that you could realistically draw. If Assange were to be taken from the UK or from Sweden and incarcerated in Guantanamo, his experience would be completely unprecedented.

Re:Appeal

[Knuckles]

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

Re:Appeal

[inpher]

UK, who extradited McKinnon among others, a nation that is also a NATO member by the way, that is a member of the Extradition Act of 2003 and accepts 70% of all extradition requests by USA will be less likely to comply to this?

Re:Appeal

[Darinbob]

It's both. Assange is so arrogant as to think he really is public enemy number one. And his laywers are using it as a ploy.

Re:Appeal

[Eivind]

Yeah. But the claim is doubly-stupid.

First, it's not credible that he'd be executed even if he WAS sent to USA. It's true that you're among the few modern states who still have capital punishment, but it's not used for cases such as his, and the image-costs of having him executed would be MUCH higher than any potential benefit.

Second, if there *was* a credible threat of execution in the USA (which there isn't) then Sweden -also- does not extradite prisoners to countries where they risk being executed. (infact they're more careful about it than the UK is, as far as I've been able to ascertain)

Re:Appeal

[fishbowl]

Ok, an edge case. He was eventually released. If the US wanted to do something like this to Assange, they'd just grab him directly, wouldn't they? There's no need for any theatre of "due process", and no need for him to leave Britain.

Just how far did the governments of Germany, Macedonia, Lebanon or Kuwait go to help their man, by the way? It doesn't look like any of them actually lifted a finger. In fact, it looks a hell of a lot like the German authorities knew all about it. And did absolutely nothing.

Anyway, whenever the US accuses Assange of a crime, I'll take notice. Until then, I'll just yawn.

Re:Appeal

[Knuckles]

Edge case? You're writing as if this was an isolated incident. Have you really never heard of the secret "war on terror" CIA prisons? The fact that the European governments (not even to speak of Middle Eastern and African ones of course) collaborated, makes it only scarier and lends credence to the claim by Assange's lawyers that a fair trial in Sweden is questionable. And my point is that the veracity of that claim is not even that important - however that may be, the US together with its allies undermined much of the trust people once had in them, and appeals to that sentiment can count on sympathy, and I for one can easily believe that Assange has a right to be paranoid.

Whether the US would want to simply disappear Assange is questionable and at least open to debate. It's one thing to do it to muslims during a so-called war and in the aftermath of the shock about the dead of 9/11, and quite another to do it to a white Australian computer nerd for posting text on the web. I don't think the Obama administration would want to deal with the questions that would arise if Assenge simply vanished. The upholding of the theater of due process is one of the remaining social adhesives that constantly grow thinner anyway.

Re:Appeal

[fishbowl]

>Edge case? You're writing as if this was an isolated incident.

Somewhere much closer to "isolated incident" than "happens all the time, lots of people know people who have experienced it."

Assange is having delusions of grandeur. Wake me up when he is accused of a crime.

Re:Appeal

[Knuckles]

whatever the mental state of Assange, he's also much closer to "perceived enemy of the US" than to "average bloke", it appears reasonable to expect special attention being given to him.

Re:Appeal

[fishbowl]

ok.

Re:Appeal

[Knuckles]

A kind of agreement on /. after prolonged discussion? A rare occasion :) I want to add that I don't think your point of view is totally unreasonable. Objectively the danger that the US pose for Assange may be small as you say. What I tried to express (not sure I managed) is my view that the job of Assange's lawyers is to get him out out any legal proceedings, and some recent actions of the US have made it easy for them to point to the alleged dangers. And that I can totally understand if Assange is paranoid, I would be too.

Appeal

[MrL0G1C]

He's not lost yet, he will be appealing against extradition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865

Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[DuncanE]

"Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables."

I never got that. He's in England and he's from Australia. Surely these are the 2 biggest allies of the US.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Duncan J Murray]

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

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[pr0nbot]

I don't know whether the death penalty would be on the table for whatever crimes the US believes him to have committed, but that could block his extradition from the UK at least.

Wikipedia says: "Many countries and areas, such as Canada, Macao,[1] Mexico, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case."

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, it's likely easier to extract him from the UK. We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case. The U.S. could have Asange if they'd just find something to charge him with. We in the UK are very helpful in that regard.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[AccUser]

IANAL, but I think that the extradition from UK to Sweden does not automatically give Sweden the right to permit an extradition to US.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[pehrs]

There is a significant difference between ally and lapdog. You can do a lot with your lapdogs you can't do with your allies.

I don't know if he is guilty or not. But the whole case have been handled in a strange, high profile, way all the way, which hints that there is a lot of political pressure involved. And that is not good for our legal system here in Sweden.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mckinnsb]

It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress. Right now, Assange is an Australian Citizen who has committed no crime in the United States or in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations. While in Sweden, Assange will be incarcerated or on bail while he awaits and undergoes trial, a process which could take years. This means that Assange will not be able to leave Sweden for a country which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States while undergoing trial in Sweden: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_treaties_or_agreements for a list of them. This would give the United States time either pass the bill, or find *something* they can stick on Assange. (While Assange is no mobster, remember that they got Capone on tax evasion. The powers that be don't always care about *how* you become guilty, just that you are.)

I'm sure they would have preferred to keep him in the UK - they are the provincial spear carrier of the United States, to use Chomsky's words -, but he committed no crime there, and they are trying to make this look as "legal" as possible. The last thing they want to do is make a huge scene over this, or make a martyr out of Assange through "unjust law" (although that still may happen) and spawn copycats. Thus the die down in press on Assange since his first denial of bond; until now of course.

Don't be surprised if the next thing you see on FOX News is Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of the SHIELD Act, while on CNN you have a "balanced debate" about "national security" and the "continuing need" for "tighter safeguards against terrorism".

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Sweden also has strict laws against extralegal renditions to countries that torture prisoners, but that didn't help the guy who found himself in Egypt after getting booked by Happy Fun Fun Charter Tours.

This isn't about 'what is likely' to happen... Sure it's unlikely that Sweden will send him off to the US against local laws, what does matter is that the court must be convinced there is no chance at all it will happen. Not just that it isn't likely for some reason like "he's white, not brown like that other guy". Precedent says Sweden is willing to break the law to appease the US, and this seems like a prime candidate for that happening again.

Also it should be obvious why the UK and Australia would want Sweden to do the rendition, as such an action would cause huge political problems. Better to have little Sweden do the dirty work.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

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.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mckinnsb]

It doesn't, but Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States (as does the UK), and all the United States would have to do would be to convict Assange of a crime in order to ask for those treaties to be acted upon. It is, however, up to Sweden to either a) try Assange first, then extradite him to the US, b) extradite him to the US, then upon completion of trial or sentence have him returned to Sweden for his trial there, or c) try Assange and simply deny the US extradition request. I would assume there might be diplomatic repercussions for Sweden if they chose c), however.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[elrous0]

The U.S. has a powerful influence over the whole EU (and much of the rest of the world). And Assange has no power. Guess who most governments will side with.

He would have been smarter to go to a country whose government was actively hostile to the U.S. and their edicts (like Cuba or Venezuela).

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[elrous0]

UK has a storied history of standing against US extradition requests

You mean like they did with Gary McKinnon? Give me a break, buddy. If Obama pulled his dick out, David Cameron would be on his knees so fast he'd probably break a leg.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Sechr Nibw]

You can do a lot with your lapdogs you can't do with your allies.

Does this involve peanut butter?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[commodore6502]

>>>there is little doubt he will be convicted if he has to stand trial.

All a woman has to do is say, "He put his penis in me without a condom," and that's enough to CONVICT a person? Really? (1) If it were true, that would make Sweden a dangerous place, where men can be jailed at any time a woman wishes them to be jailed. "He raped me because I say so." -woman. "Okay that's good enough for me - 20 years." - judge.

(2) I don't believe it Sweden's justice system is that shitty.

(3) What exactly would the US execute Assange for? He committed no more crime than did the Newspapers that published the Pentagon papers or the Watergate wiretaps. (If the EU citizens really believe the US sucks that bad, then maybe it truly is time for the US to withdraw from Europe, and return to an 1800s-style neutral policy.)

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[betterunixthanunix]

Why would someone who stands for free press and free access to information want to go to a country like Cuba?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[ciderbrew]

Also it should be obvious why the UK and Australia would want Sweden to do the rendition, as such an action would cause huge political problems. Better to have little Sweden do the dirty work.

Right there is the point of all of this.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Gandalf1957]

It will not be possible to pursue him under the SHIELD act unless he commits an offence AFTER it is passed as the constitution imposes a blanket ban on ex post facto criminal law so it is unlikely that any kind of stalling for this reason is taking place.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Anonymous Coward]

No charges have actually been raised against him. The UK judge ignored that awkward point, as did you.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[ciderbrew]

We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case

Really? That's fucking awful!

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[betterunixthanunix]

Or they could argue that he continued publishing the material by keeping the cablegate website online. You know, making an end-run around the constitution has never been problematic for the government...

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Richard_at_work]

Why stand against a valid request - just because the guy has aspergers doesn't mean he isn't fit to stand trial.

And the fact that hes become a Slashdot poster boy doesn't alter that either. The guy deserves to be extradited.

Yeah, I'm going to get modded down for this. So what.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[rtb61]

However the safest place for Assange to resist extradition is the country where he is a citizen, especially as there is a political divide in government about whether wikileaks is a good or bad thing. The underdog, the battler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_battler is very big in Australian culture and Julian versus the whole US government would be extremely popular, especially after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths and that took more than three years without much public sympathy (and not after being lied into a war in Iraq), something which those diplomatic would have likely exposed.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Jenming]

Take off your tinfoil hat.
This is how we feel about Free Speech in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

What I find worrisome is people who are more afraid of a vast US conspiracy than the very real possibility that he raped two women. I thought Western Europe was about on par with the USA as far as womens rights go, am I mistaken?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[LWATCDR]

Funny but I never thought of Sweden as a US lapdog. You really do not see why it is being handled in such a public way? Really? Please Assange loves the spot light. He has a bit of a cult of personality that believes he is their infallible savor. You will even find people saying that even if he is guilty his work is more important that if he is guilty of rape. He ran away from Sweden and he is fought extradition is a very public way.
And you do not understand why this is so public?
As to political pressure I am sure that there is a lot going both ways. Frankly you are exerting political pressure on your own legal system because you do not seem to want him tried. That is the way politics works. I am not sure that there is any political pressure from the US to force this except for a lot of big grins. You probably have a good bit from within your own nation to go after him. I am sure that there is a segment of the country that doesn't like the idea of a big mouth foreigner breaking your laws and then leaving.
There is probably even some that do not like him saying that the US is forcing them to do it.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't legally 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).

FTFY. If Sweden puts him on a flight to the USA then it wouldn't do a whole lot of good if the UK complained about it -- which on current showing they'd be unlikely to do anyway.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Yes, really. And yes, we know.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[elrous0]

Because it beats prison, and because Castro would be more than happy to allow him all the freedom he wanted--as long as he wasn't embarrassing Castro or one of his friends.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[chemicaldave]

It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but how would the SHIELD Act help the US extradite Assange?

It's an amendment to existing law. I read over the amendments and the original code, and I can't see anything damning.
Here's the text of the act and here is the law it amends.

The penalty in the law states that the convicted

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.

I dont see anything about the death penalty in there or references to extradition.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Survival.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[CrackedButter]

No the US is behind because the Republicans want to take away child planning services from women and make abortion a very difficult process.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[VJ42]

Yes, really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three#Extradition_controversy

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[MysteriousPreacher]

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.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[countertrolling]

The guy deserves to be extradited.

You based this on what, exactly? Something you read in the papers, or have you seen actual "evidence"? For some small reason, I believe it's the former.. can't pin down why though.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mwvdlee]

I thought one of the demands England made for extradition to Sweden was that Assange would not be extradited to the US from Sweden?
Then again, laws only apply to people the US likes.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Richard_at_work]

I base my opinion on much more than the rest of Slashdot seems to - I read the court papers for McKinnons extradition hearings and I have experience with Aspergers.

A crime was committed, McKinnon was identified and charged, and he deserves to stand trial for the given charges - the fact that he has aspergers has fuck all to do with it. If he can take part in a public panel at Infosecurity Europe 2006 and answer questions on his hack, then why in hell should he not face a court? Hes talked openly and freely about the hack, his motivations and details the reasons he got caught - sounds like hes perfectly capable of reasoning and judgement based decision making to me.

Extradition does not automatically equate to guilt - the following around McKinnon is to deny the American government a chance to put him in front of a court to face charges and nothing I have read or experienced says that he should be allowed to circumvent that.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mcvos]

The UK can also still deny Swedish extradition to the US.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[countertrolling]

So sorry.. I thought we were talking about Assange.. As for the other guy, they can go ahead with their kangaroo court without him. And, as seeing the the government commits these exact same "crimes" all the time, they have no legitimacy on the matter. Screw them..

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

Yeah, except Sweden would then be subject to penalties for violating its legal & treaty obligations to the EU. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and if you think that the government of Sweden will risk incurring the economic and legal wrath of the entire EU over this, you're deluding yourself.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[CodeBuster]

Don't be surprised if the next thing you see on FOX News is Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of the SHIELD Act, while on CNN you have a "balanced debate" about "national security" and the "continuing need" for "tighter safeguards against terrorism".

CNN may be balanced, but FOX is fair and balanced...

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Richard_at_work]

With regard to Assange, read the court documents for this ruling (someone else in this story posts a link) - its very interesting.... basically, Assanges defence couldn't defend their way out of a wet, torn paper bag. Their key defence witnesses are found to have major flaws in their statements, the court even gets one of their major witnesses to essentially flip his position in court and agree that theres nothing wrong with the extradition request as it stands, even Assanges lawyer is found to have actively lied to the court on several occassions.

Also, try reading up on the actual allegations against Assange, they are different to those thrown about here on Slashdot.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Foobar of Borg]

No the US is behind because the Republicans want to take away child planning services from women and make abortion a very difficult process.

Actually, what they want is to make abortion and contraception illegal in all cases. They want it to be such that a woman can't use contraception and can't get an abortion even if she was raped. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Republican men are all a bunch of rapists who see that as their opportunity to have more children. Perhaps, if they win this "victory" they will try to roll back societal progress even further and bring back jus primae noctis. After all, if you don't want your employer (which would be the modern equivalent of the feudal lord) to fuck your new wife on your wedding night, you can always find a new job, right?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[zerak]

Extradition is huge political hot topic here in the UK. After Gary Mckinnon (still awaiting extradition), it has become a tricky issue, there have been various calls for the treaty to be torn up, it may be as part of a reaction to the US lapdog caricature. So to send him to the US from here would cause a backlash against the government which is the last thing they need, especially since the coalition are already taking flak about the Cuts.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Only if anybody relevant complains. And even then it would hardly be "wrath", it would be "oops, be more careful next time".

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[BrokenHalo]

If the EU citizens really believe the US sucks that bad, then maybe it truly is time for the US to withdraw from Europe, and return to an 1800s-style neutral policy.

Maybe. Or maybe the US could just stop being international thugs, and then maybe EU citizens might stop taking such a jaundiced view of them. Worth a try.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[BrokenHalo]

Interesting point. But it's likely that he's better off in the UK than in his home country, where our Prime Minister has appointed herself as judge and jury by calling Assange a "criminal". She doesn't have the numbers to become his executioner, but doubtless she would hand that job over to the US in the blink of an eye.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Joce640k]

... the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.

Yeah, right, like any part of this farce has followed the laws/rules so far....

eg. An Interpol arrest warrant issued for a crime that was only committed in one country and has a maximum $700 fine...? Uhuh.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

Really... you don't think violating fundamental obligations by an EU member state wouldn't be met with more than a little anger and a few consequences?

I guess I overestimated the EU's independence from the oversight of the US... I guess the entire EU is just willing to roll over when the US says so?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[pehrs]

As I said, I don't know if he is guilty or not. But at this point I doubt he will get a fair trial in Sweden. Nobody will be satisfied with the result, regardless of what it is. He is not getting the same treatment as Sven Svensson would get if suspected of the same crime, which makes me very suspicious.

Historically Sweden has had a very high profile independence in international matters. But this have been strongly eroded the last ten years or so. We have had some rather spectacular scandals, including Swedish security police helping the CIA send refugees from Sweden to Egypt where they were tortured in secret prisons. So, we have reason to suspect parts of our government not to act in the best interest of the people living in Sweden and instead give priority to US foreign interests.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[BrokenHalo]

I suspect you entertain a somewhat rose-tinted version of the situation here in Australia.

Here we have two major parties: one that is openly fascist, where individual members are somewhat free to occasionally express their own opinions (for better or for worse), and the other currently ruling party that was originally founded on socially-progressive policies which have been long abandoned in the quest for the endorsement of the swinging voter. Furthermore, the Labor Party machinery is such that now the extreme right wing is in charge of it, they are in a position to enforce party rules to suppress all dissent within the ranks.

There was a time, not that long ago, when I was a Labor voter. But since the Labor party has lost its balls and is more concerned with getting the redneck vote than with pursuing issues of social or any other kind of justice, they have lost my support. And I have told them so. Apparently I'm not alone, so the ball's in their court.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Violations of EU treaty obligations happen all the time. Sure they have consequences, but I reckon a one-off violation affecting a single individual would be seen as a minor matter, possibly just a mistake. Anger would only kick in if it looks as if a State is consistently ignoring their treaty obligations. The most likely consequence is that the EU would say that Assange would have the right to sue Sweden for damages. I suppose the UK could get angry, but the anger wouldn't achieve much, and I can't help thinking that the UK government would actually be pleased at giving the USA what they wanted whilst somebody else gets the blame. Treaty violations only matter in practice if the parties to the treaty care about that particular violation.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Ironhandx]

Um, honestly, its pretty much that bad in the US and Canada right now already. Why would sweden be any different?

I know a man that was charged with rape by his WIFE after he left her. He was even provably out of town at the time she said it occurred and he was still found guilty based on the fact that he wasn't far enough out of town, and he could have driven 4 hours in the middle of the night, raped her, and driven 4 hours back to where he was, all without anyone else(he was staying with family) noticing I might add. It was a light sentence but he's still on the sex offenders registry because of it.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

An interpol arrest warrant is following the laws & rules - he allegedly committed a crime in one country, then left that country. Interpol, which exists to facilitate international police cooperation, became involved because Sweden wanted him returned to face the allegations, and so an arrest warrant was issued, and extradition proceedings were initiated.

The crimes he's being investigated for carry a penalty of up to 4 years in jail if he's found guilty, not a "maximum $700 fine." The allegations are for sexual assault & rape, not littering, or the delightfully quaint-sounding "sex by surprise".

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[elrous0]

The tinfoil hat is reserved for irrational nutballs who think that the government is hiding little green men at Roswell, or monitoring their brainwaves through their dog's flea collar. It doesn't mean that anyone who acknowledges that their government engages in secret intelligence and counter-intelligence operations is some batshit crazy Fox Mulder.

Or do you seriously think the CIA wouldn't take any action against foreign nationals who leak classified U.S. documents, when that is their fucking *explicit job*?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Duradin]

"What exactly would the US execute Assange for?"

Exactly. He's a noisome nuisance of a media whore but that's not a capital offense. The best thing the US can do is let him be someone else's problem.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[0111 1110]

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 [europa.eu] acts).

Once he is in Sweden, what does the UK have to do with anything? He's not a citizen of the UK. Are you saying that the first EU country to extradite him somehow has veto power over any further extraditions by other EU countries?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[0111 1110]

The UK can also still deny Swedish extradition to the US.

How?
[citation needed]

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Gandalf1957]

Or they could argue that he continued publishing the material by keeping the cablegate website online. You know, making an end-run around the constitution has never been problematic for the government...

Absolutely and it's also likely that if it makes it into law they'll probably try to pull something using the 'clear and present danger' option but it's also highly likely that if/when the act is passed into law Wikileaks will take down anything that is likely to lead to criminal prosecution until a way around it is found. The authorities in the US must also have drawn the same conclusion so stalling now, for an opportunity to extradite under the act, is still a pointless exercise.

Personally if the act looks like becoming law I wouldn't be at all surprised to see everything that Wikileaks have being released to go viral then taken down just before the act is sworn into law.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying - under EU laws, a country who takes custody of somebody under an extradition arrangement may not surrender that person to a third country without the express approval of the original country's Justice Minister/Attorney General AND the approval of that country's high court.

In other words, Sweden must provide a guarantee to the UK that they will seek the approval of the UK's Justice Minister and the UK's High Court before they agree to extradite him to the US. This prevents third parties from "jurisdiction shopping" - if Sweden makes the request for extradition in bad faith - i.e., with the express intent of turning him over to the US. It also guarantees that, even if Sweden doesn't intend to do that, should the US spring a surprise extradition request on Sweden after the UK extradites him, they still may not agree to extradite unless the UK also approves.

If the UK refuses, and he's returned to the UK after his business with Sweden is finished, the US could submit a new request for extradition from the UK, and make their case there... but they can't get him extradited to a "friendlier" country with the intent of extraditing him from that friendlier country.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Xaositecte]

I've been trying to find what Assange is actually charged with, but so far have only found secondary sources that tell widely different stories about what happened, what the official statements are, etc.

Do you know where I can find the actual charges?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Xaositecte]

Treaty violations happen all the time, this is true - but this is also an extremely high profile case. Almost every major news organization in both Europe and America are following this like hawks, and it would be impossible to claim a major breach like that to be a "mistake."

Car Analogy time:

Fender Benders happen all the time, they're normally legitimate mistakes, and get repaired by paying the deductible. Normally it doesn't even show up on your insurance as an accident.

Tailgating someone while a police car is riding beside the two of you, and then intentionally bumping into them has the potential to get you in much more serious legal problems, even if the actual damage you've done to the other car is the same.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Xaositecte]

Everything I've read indicates he hasn't even been charged with anything.

This makes it very difficult to speculate on what exactly he would be charged with, and what penalties he would suffer if found guilty.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Treaty violations happen all the time, this is true - but this is also an extremely high profile case. Almost every major news organization in both Europe and America are following this like hawks, and it would be impossible to claim a major breach like that to be a "mistake."

So some of the press will make a fuss, yes. Enough to bring down the government or sway the next election? I doubt it.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[gknoy]

If there are no charges, why does he need to be extradited?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

The european arrest warrant specifies that he is wanted on suspicion of: "Rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion, and two cases of sexual molestation."

The first of those - "Rape (less serious crime)" - carries a 2-4 year penalty; Unlawful coercion carries a sentence of up to 2 years; (Source); Sexual molestation carries with it a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years. (Source)

Of course, the investigation may find no basis to proceed with the prosecution, and he'll be released and charges dropped. But implying that he's being made the subject of an international manhunt for a crime that, at its worst, carries a couple hundred dollars fine, is simply not the case. We know what they want him arrested on suspicion of, and it does carry fairly significant penalties, unless you consider a couple years of your life to be peanuts.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

I'm pretty sure that the EU members would take very unkindly to a member state rolling over and ignoring EU laws because the US says so. I'm also pretty sure that the general population of those countries wouldn't take it kindly, either.

Remember Tony Blair, alternately known as "Bush's Poodle," or the "US foreign minister," as Nelson Mandela put it?

Rolling over to unpopular (or downright illegal) demands from the US government is a sure way to find yourself out of office in the next election, particularly in Europe.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[the_womble]

Will the UK veto be decided by a judge or a politician.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

What makes you think they'd go through all this theater in the first place, then, and instead just hand him over to the US? It's perfectly legal for the UK to extradite people to the US... it's perfectly illegal for Sweden to do so without the UK's approval.

Why not just hand him over to the US directly if seeing him turned over to the US is something they're interested in?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

High court AND justice minister must both agree, so "yes, decided by both."

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[rahvin112]

Two things:

You all have a very low opinion of the Swedish justice system. Personally I find it offensive that you are so willing to Label the Swedes collaborators but the UK has collaborated far more than the Swedish government ever has. It's frankly ridiculous, he's far more at risk of extradition from the UK than he is from Sweden. In fact based on History all the US has to do is request him and the UK will hand him over, yet your argument to prevent extradition to Sweden is that he's as more risk? Don't be silly.

You all give entirely to much credit to the US government in being organized and efficient and capable. The FBI isn't capable of doing what you claim and the CIA and wouldn't bother, they'd just run him over in a hit and run incident. The military would just make sure something deadly happened. The Bourne Identity isn't real. The US doesn't have the capability you assume it does because you watched too many movies.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[digitig]

Yes, and look how much harm it did Blair. Crying all the way to the bank, I expect.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Americano]

You don't think he would rather have stayed in power? You don't think he would rather have been remembered as some strong, popular, charismatic leader who the people loved?

News flash: anybody who's in national politics in ANY country is *rich*. It comes with the profession, unfortunately - you're either very rich to start, or you end up very rich because you're influential, and people want access to that.

Your statement was, "Enough to bring down the government or sway the next election? I doubt it." And in fact, Sweden doing that in a high-profile case like this might very well be "enough to bring down the government or sway the next election." A large portion of Blair's lost approval ratings stemmed from his close working relationship with the US government.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Darinbob]

Logic never stops the paranoia.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Darinbob]

This is just absurd. Paranoia is running high on slashdot today. Sweden is a part of the EU. While it might decide to break EU laws, it is highly unlikely. It is no more likely that Sweden would hand him over to the US than the UK would. The UK is clearly has closer ties with the US than Sweden does, so in which Bizarro universe is the UK expected to be more neutral and the defender of liberty and Sweden is now the evil lapdog?

You guys are all buying into Assange's paranoia. He's gone over the deep end with his neo-anarchist idealism that all information must be free and all governments are evil. He had no remorse about giving up names of secret informers knowing that they could be killed over it, and he only changed his mind when Amnesty International disagreed with him. There was no government conspiracy to discredit Assange, he did that to himself. There were no plants in wikileaks, the co-founders left because they could see that Assange was ruining it all and trying to turn himself into the sole spokesperson and perceived leader. But to Assange the entire world is out to get him and his cause of righteousness.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Darinbob]

"Rape" has several meanings. The Swedish law he's being questioned over has nothing to do with what the US considers "rape". This is not that suspicious because Sweden has dealt with this sort of thing before, it's not a new twisting of law just to deal with one guy.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[Dodgy G33za]

Neither the UK or Australia will extradite if the charge carries a maximum penalty of death.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Don't be surprised if the next thing you see on FOX News is Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of the SHIELD Act...

You know I keep seeing Glenn Beck brought up in these discussions as being in on a smear campaign against Assange...last time I had the misfortune of stumbling upon one of Beck's little discussions, he was actually defending Assange and, to a lesser extent, wikileaks adamantly. Now I'll give it's been awhile since I saw that (last year sometime) but did he just flip a complete 180 on Assange's character or do people just associate him with prom-America type stuff?

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[bstender]

there is little doubt he will be convicted if he has to stand trial

No, there is extreme doubt that he will be convicted. Sweden isn't a banana republic after all, just another boot-licking sycophant of the Empire. The goal is to cause as much difficulty as possible to Assange. I doubt the US will successfully extradite him either, but it will cost him plenty along the way...all of this is a lesson to him and others not to tread on Superman's cape.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mywhitewolf]

this is the same prime minister that stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, luckily its up to Rudd to deal with extradition, and Rudd is somewhat supportive of Assange. I guess he is still bitter about being kicked out of the top job by the oil companies.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mywhitewolf]

I think its important to note that the safest thing for Assange to do is make sure this remains in the spot light. its going to be a lot harder to make him disappear. its also possible that America are happy to make this a big spot light event, even if it pisses off its allies (which America has never really had a problem with before) and hang him anyway (you piss off us, doesn't matter who you are we will get you).

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[mcvos]

I believe it's an EU agreement. If an EU member extradites to another EU member, and that second member wants to extradite that same person to yet another country, the first EU member has to give permission. In this case, the UK would have to give Sweden permission to extradite Assange to the US.

Note: I'm no extradition lawyer. I just picked this up in the many discussions where this extradition has been discussed.

Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US?

[OneAhead]

Them. Their political party received 0.68% of the votes in 2005 and 0.40% in 2010, which is slightly less than the pirate party and also less than the 4% threshold to get a seat in the parliament. The woman who left because she and her children allegedly received death threats and were harassed by the media was the one who forced out the other one for not being Gay. I have the impression that they're significantly less popular in Sweden than, say, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the US. Your argument is similar to saying that any high-profile homosexual should avoid traveling to the US because that's where Fred Phelps lives.

There are good reasons Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden, but I don't think the feminist movement is one of them.

I would just like to take this opportunity to say.

[Seumas]

I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No US Extradition

[Sonny Yatsen]

At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.

Re:No US Extradition

[drinkypoo]

At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.

Uh, seriously? Once they have him in their hands it's all over. The USA invents some new charges and bingo, extradition.

Re:No US Extradition

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to go through their sham trial before getting a surprising extradition request from the US that they were not at all expecting.

Phillip.

Re:No US Extradition

[elrous0]

The U.S. wants him in prison. It serves their purposes even better if it's on rape charges (because those charges discredit him and tarnish his martyr status too). They don't just want him just taken out, they want him discredited. That's why they've been stirring up dissent among his former supporters too (some of whom were likely plants sent in for this very purpose).

After all, why make him a martyr by dragging him to the U.S. and charging him with dubious espionage charges when you can send him to prison as a rapist, with many of his "supporters" bad-mouthing him at the same time?

It's a smart move on the CIA's part. I'm actually surprised, as they have a very long history of fucking up these kinds of operations. Wouldn't surprise me to find out this wasn't their work, but some other U.S. agency (with some goddamn common sense).

Re:No US Extradition

[Xest]

You're assuming of course that Sweden will follow the letter of the law.

It's perfectly possible Sweden will just ignore it's obligations and ship him to the US anyway. Why? Because a nice lucrative deal for their corporations in the US will be worth far more to them than a bit of fall out in Europe which will result in perhaps a few bullish exchanges, and then will be quickly forgotten.

That's really all the US has to offer Sweden- something to make it worthwhile for them, and as Sweden is such a small country, it's not too hard to do something that'll make a big impact. A $20bn trade deal might not be enough to sway countries like the UK or Germany into dodging their international obligations, but to Sweden it would've been enough to completely negate their annual economic contraction during the recent financial turmoil and then given them some growth on top.

Re:No US Extradition

[gfreeman]

The United States hasn't even charged this guy with anything.

Neither has Sweden, and yet ...

Re:No US Extradition

[Xest]

You're assuming other member states would care. You're also assuming that even if they did that any response would be economic in nature.

Did you see any European countries bat an eyelid when the UK released Megrahi? Did they care how much it pissed the US off when they did it? In this case both French and US petroleum companies lost out on lucrative Lybian oil contracts. Only the US made a noise.

It happens, unless you assume Sweden is different, but then, Sweden didn't seem to mind bending the rules for the raid on The Pirate Bay's server host, or the show trial some years later (allowing an MPAA affiliated judge to judge the case).

Is there really any European government that supports Assange's case anyway? In recent weeks the British government has already been hard trying to drum up support to move power away from the judiciary to the government, so it's possible by the time any such move happens the only people that can make a noise- the judges, will no longer have the power to act anyway. Who exactly would even speak up that matters?

Re:No US Extradition

[Altus]

If you buy the theory that the US will have an easier time getting him from Sweden than the UK then it wouldn't make sense for anyone in the US to accuse him of a crime until after he has been extradited to Sweden. If the US was actively seeking extradition it might influence the decision made by the UK.

Re:No US Extradition

[kraut]

Is this the same Sweden that, apart from maintaining an enviable position as a champion of human rights for as long as I remember (which is a worryingly long time now), and has recently ranked joint 4th least corrupt country in the world (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results - 16 places above the UK , 18 above the US), or a different country of the same name of which I was hitherto unaware?

Re:No US Extradition

[Xest]

No, you must be thinking of a different Sweden.

The Sweden I'm referring to is the one that was sterilising people who they felt were not perfect members of society such as criminals and the mentally ill all the way up until the 80s, and didn't even consider compensation until the turn of the last century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Sweden

The same Sweden that supported the US' extraordinary rendition programme by acting as a stopover base for abduction of those who were sometimes even completely innocent civilians.

The same Sweden that has forced legitimate asylum seekers out of their country back to dangerous areas such as Iraq, and the same Sweden that has sent terror suspects to countries where they will and did become victims of torture:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGEUR420012006&lang=e

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Sweden is a signatory, states:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Yet the Swedish PM has explicitly breached this by claiming Assange is an enemy of the Swedish people, and by suggesting he is guilty of rape before he has even been charged, let alone convicted.

That's the Sweden I'm talking about. The one that's guilty of numerous human rights violations, some of which other countries like the UK are guilty of too, others that are much worse.

The corruption perceptions index is just that- about perceived corruption not actual corruption. It is also biased towards smaller countries, because it doesn't weight for the size of public sector. This is why low population countries storm the charts, not because they're actually less corrupt. It's largely useless as a true statistical measure however it's still a useful stick to beat larger countries like the US and UK into doing even better with because it makes them look bad which I wont complain about. The more these larger influential countries have corruption beaten out of them the better.

Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[Anonymous Coward]

...who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website...

Maybe so, but I think he did more for moving the Arab World towards Democracy than the US ever did.

I mean think about this: food prices are going through the roof and people see, thanks to WikiLeaks, that their "leaders" are living high on the hog at their expense. I think they've seen (I hope) that their leaders played them for chumps by blaming the US for all their problems and at the same time, taking billions in foreign "aid" for the US so that the despots can fight against terrorism - our retarded Government actually believed that only the despots could fight against terrorism.

And I think the leaks have shown that some of their "revolutionary leaders" who are "standing up to" the US are nothing but liars and cheats.

If the charges are true, I would expect Assange to pay and if they are made up for whatever reason - government intrigue or for attention whoring - I hope that he is exonerated and the people behind the ruse are exposed and punished.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[maxwell demon]

Maybe so, but I think he did more for moving the Arab World towards Democracy than the US ever did.

Possibly the U.S. government is angry about that, too. They just can't say it aloud.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[Rakshasa Taisab]

And now _YOU_ can search the documents here thanks to the Norwegian newspaper that got hold of the cables.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[LWATCDR]

Funny but I am pretty sure that the people have eyes and can see that their leaders are not hungry and are wearing nice cloths and riding around in limos. And right now it looks like Facebook and Twitter are doing more to liberate those nations than Wikileaks.
Actually Wikileaks seems to be trying to be relevant by publishing cables about each nation "AFTER" protests start.
And here is the question that no one will like. If Wikileaks is responsible for the protests what are they going to take credit for the body count in Libya? I really fear that we will see numbers that will make strong men cry from that mad man.
I think that is just bull. The change in the middle east is happening because of economic reason combined with a new level of world wide communications. People do not live in ignorance of what is going on much any more. In other words thank the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, and CNN and the BBC.

Oh and for the record I really do not like a lot of Obama's policies and do not thing he has been a good president but I do believe he is doing the right things by not saying a lot about Libya. The US has been made a boogie man in a lot of places for many years. I think he is showing good judgement by not trying to gain political traction at home by giving useless and possible harmful speechs. So from a none fan, good job Mr. President.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[Toze]

Maybe so, but I think he did more for moving the Arab World towards Democracy than the US ever did.

Governments hate competition.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[CaptainAmerica1941]

Wait a minute - I thought it was the Twitter Revolution!?!

Now I'm all confused.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[marcosdumay]

Those people didn't revolt for decades, while facing the same kind of abuse every day. They revolted now, and two main things changed, those were Wikileaks data and food prices. Tunisia protests were clearly linked to Wikileaks data, by the way. They could be mainly caused by food prices, and protesters only claimed they were protesting because of Wikileaks, but claiming that they had no relevance when the people protesting was claiming otherwise isn't quite right.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[marcosdumay]

"Possibly the U.S. government is angry about that, too."

That is a certainty. After all, except from Libia, all of those dictatorships were implanted and supported by the US.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[purpledinoz]

food prices are going through the roof

You can thank "helicopter" Ben Bernanke for that. His loose money policies are the reason why all commodities are going through the roof.

Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World

[bstender]

You almost got there...Tunisia started this ball rolling and it has been widely accredited to the cables spelling out the corruption of Ben Ali. The corruption and oppression was obvious, but seeing it in black and white makes a difference.

I'd also suggest that the trove of documents make it clear in many places how little concern for justice, legality, the welfare of people and especially, how very little 'nobility' exists amongst the ruling class, (not just in the middle east). This erodes a lot of support from the fence sitters, willing to give their leaders the benefit of the doubt. Yes, they really totally ARE a mafioso running a protection racket.

It's an unfair world

[benjfowler]

But at least it's good to see that despite Assange being "special" and ostensibly exempt from the rules and obligations that the rest of us must adhere to -- being a douchebag will still bring you unstuck.

Re:It's an unfair world

[blue trane]

when's he going to drop the bank leaks?

On what charges?

[srussia]

TFA says: "to face allegations of sexual assault"

But there are no charges in Sweden against Assange. Why didn't the defence lawyers bring this up? He is not formally accused of anything.

Re:On what charges?

[FinchWorld]

Apparently they are extraditing him with the purpose of prosecuting him, not just to question him.

Re:On what charges?

[Americano]

Because the case is still in the investigation phase. According to TFA:

In his summary Riddle accused Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, of making a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. Assange had clearly attempted to avoid the Swedish justice system before he left the country, Riddle said. "It would be a reasonable assumption from the facts that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation before he left Sweden."

They are returning him to Sweden, where they will finish their investigation; if the investigation finds that charges are warranted, then he will be formally charged. If the investigation finds that charges are not warranted, then he will be released and returned to the UK. The lack of charges at this time does not negate the validity of the European Arrest Warrant - a warrant is issued for someone on suspicion of having committed a crime. Then there is an investigation (which generally includes interviews/interrogation of the people involved), and then if it does appear a crime was committed, charges are formally filed. Since it appears that Mr. Assange skipped out before the Swedish police were finished with their investigation, he is being returned to Sweden so that they may do so.

Re:On what charges?

[srussia]

Thanks for the clue, but I still don't grok how "questioning with intent to prosecute" is equivalent to being charged with an offence.

I followed the Guardian's links and found this: "... the Swedish prosecutor has made it clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence before trial, he will be tried."

WTF?

Re:On what charges?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more.

Yet Sweden claims they're only interested in him for questioning, and have not yet charged him with anything... What you say about there only needing to be an investigation is not actually true.

Re:On what charges?

[DeadCatX2]

I was under the impression that Sweden gave him permission to leave the country. How could he skip town if they let him leave?

Re:On what charges?

[Americano]

Your point only holds water if you define criminal prosecution so narrowly that it cannot include the investigation, which they are still conducting. Criminal complaints have been filed, and the investigation into them is ongoing, and will file charges if the investigation turns up evidence of illegal behavior. This is all part of the process of criminal prosecution.

And, incidentally, it appears as if a judge in the UK with far more legal experience than you or I has ruled that it's a valid & enforceable warrant.

Re:On what charges?

[grimJester]

Apparently they are extraditing him with the purpose of prosecuting him, not just to question him.

Read page 14 onwards in the verdict. This is far from straightforward.

Re:On what charges?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I was under the impression that Sweden gave him permission to leave the country.

And you were under that impression because Assange and his lawyers told you that.

Re:On what charges?

[DeadCatX2]

And I would think that if his lawyers were lying, people would be plastering such evidence all over the Internet.

Re:On what charges?

[Americano]

According to the judge in the UK, it sounds like he took steps to avoid contact with the investigators. It's entirely possible that his "permission to leave" was granted like so:
Mr. Assange: "Can I leave town?"
Swedish Police: "Sure, you can leave town. But we will probably want you to come back for further questioning."
Mr. Assange: "Okay, great, I'll be in London if you need me."

Re:On what charges?

[srussia]

Thanks for that. One key statement in the judgment was: There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”.

I checked the EU Framework Decision on EAWs, and the wording is also quite ambiguous, as it refers to "purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".

I guess the problem lies in the difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems used respectively in civil law and common law jurisdictions.

Re:On what charges?

[Americano]

Here's the judge's findings for his extradition case. Interestingly, he addresses the whole "they told me I could leave" thing, in his summary of findings of fact, specifically items 5 through 15 on pages 9 & 10 of the PDF linked. It appears as if the prosecution made repeated attempts to contact him to arrange a time for an interview/interrogation, but that his lawyer was "unable to contact Mr. Assange" - but, cannot recall exactly what steps he took to contact Mr. Assange with any clarity. The judge concludes that a reasonable conclusion may be drawn that Mr. Assange was deliberately avoiding contact - specifically, in item 15 of his findings of fact, he states:

Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts
then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

"The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court," well... that's just a nice way of calling someone a liar. And let's be honest - if you know you have legal allegations being leveled at you, do you seriously go off the grid for a week and ignore all attempts to contact you by your legal representation? It's a very reasonable conclusion to assume that Mr. Assange deliberately avoided contact, and left the country without any particular say-so from the Swedish authorities.

"The Genie is Out of the Bottle"

[h00manist]

Wikileaks popularized leaks, as Napster did p2p. Legal or not to authorities, the people have approved and adopted it, and it cannot be squashed so easily, short of a legal massacre. There is no going back, the genie is out of the bottle, the cat out of the bag, change is here, either side with progress and change, or with the establishment and status quo. Assange being prosecuted and imprisoned will encourage people, release him and the same will happen.

Re:"The Genie is Out of the Bottle"

[blackfrancis75]

Assange being prosecuted and imprisoned will encourage people, release him and the same will happen.

Even if that's true, they're probably banking that *fewer* people will be 'encouraged' if they manage to eventually execute him.

Re:"The Genie is Out of the Bottle"

[mysidia]

Even if that's true, they're probably banking that *fewer* people will be 'encouraged' if they manage to eventually execute him.

You think a EU member would allow anyone to be extradited to the US someone who has never set foot in the US, if they believed there was a chance the accused could be executed as a result?

Re:"The Genie is Out of the Bottle"

[Burz]

And for those who can enable both P2P and anon connections within the same technology, more power to them!

Re:"The Genie is Out of the Bottle"

[Issarlk]

That depends on people. Look at Tunisia, Egypt and now Libia. People seem encouraged when their peers are killed.

The fix is in

[elrous0]

Won't matter. This whole play was written before he even met those women in Sweden.

Re:The fix is in

[dave420]

[citation needed]

Re:The fix is in

[Sechr Nibw]

[BSG] This has all happened before, and will all happen again...

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

In 50 years, when all the documents are declassified showing the scummy shit going on behind the scenes on this, I'll be sure and send them along.

But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world. You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other. You keep believing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg isn't a plant who's part of a larger effort to discredit Assange by any means necessary, or that these bullshit charges aren't a part of that effort either. You keep believing that some of us didn't see this discrediting campaign coming even as Assange was stepping off that plane in Sweden.

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

So those women are guilty until proven innocent? Assange is innocent until proven guilty at least under US law but this seems like mindless hero worship at this point.

Re:The fix is in

[horza]

That doesn't even make sense. The women are accusing him of rape and so far there is zero evidence apart from their word. Of course he is innocent until proven guilty. The women have a well publicised catalogue of making charges, dropping charges, changing charges, spending the days after the alleged 'rape' with the accusers still Twittering about how happy they were to be with him, etc. To an outsider, it sounds like the women are pawns being used by a corrupt Swedish judicary (with police leaking the case to the press plus the Prime Minister trying incite hate against a victim that hasn't even gone to trial yet) on the behest of the US.

Hardly mindless hero worship when backed by a long trail of evidence, albeit some circumstantial, and incredible 'coincidences'.

Phillip.

Re:The fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wasn't a chance. Fame tends to both make people stupid and attract parasitic people. Assange got a lot of fame, very quick, and it's both made him stupid and the target of opportunists. I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they? The best way they can discredit wikileaks is by letting Assange continue to self-destruct.

I support the concept of wikileaks. I hope they survive their arrogant twit of a spokesman.

Re:The fix is in

[poetmatt]

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.

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

And that is why there will be a trial.
Really if a woman accused you of rape do you not think that you would be arrested and investigated? Do you not think that if you left the country you would have a warrant issued for your arrest? If Assange was Glen Beck would you say the same thing?

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

If if if.
No I do not think Assange would go to Gitmo. Wow the fear levels are just so out of control at times that it gets to the point of being silly.

Re:The fix is in

[CodeBuster]

Assange is innocent until proven guilty at least under US law

Juries are overwhelmingly sympathetic to women "victims" who accuse men of rape. It's just one of those unfortunate double standards that men must endure in society these days, along with more mundane indignities such as excessive alimony and continuous child support payments; even after the ex-wife is remarried to a much wealthier man.

Re:The fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that one of the women pressing charges left right after making the accusation for an extended stay in Israel. Not the traditional resting place for Swedish women, but outed CIA spies.

Re:The fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

Look man, I'm fully aware of the political shit going on with this, but frankly I agree with it. There's a lot to be freaked out over that the government does, especially when your stoned - but fighting terrorists isn't necessarily on the bad side the list.

The fact of the matter is he poses a true security threat to the US, he even attempted to utilize second-rate encryption algorithms to ensure that he could "release" the data without actually releasing it - unless he were brought up on charges.

When someone takes hostages in a building, should they really have a chance in hell at making it into a case of multiple abductions with "I've only shot them in their legs - let me leave with them and no one dies".

Yes, it's different because it's information - in trying to keep a running ring of espionage going, but check out the SOI for spies, its only his fault that no country will claim him as their own agent and thereby give him a chance of being traded rather than executed.

Re:The fix is in

[Nadaka]

Yes and Qadaffi is a respectable statesman adored by his people. There is a reason we say these things, because they happen. The whole world is a shitty corrupt place. Even the nations that are supposed to have a higher standard.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

Well, that's fine. But I would much rather the U.S. be open about Assange than to do this stupid round-about, pathetically obvious underground attempt at discrediting him. Prosecuting him openly on espionage charges and asking for extradition on that would at least allow for some sort of due process. Trumping up bullshit charges and strong-arming his old friends to bad-mouth him is another thing entirely.

Re:The fix is in

[Minix]

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.

Re:The fix is in

[turtledawn]

If it's your brat, you* should pay for its upkeep. Hardly an indignity unless you* consider honoring your commitments an indignity. (*generic you)

Re:The fix is in

[trollertron3000]

That would all make sense if he was actually discredited. I don't see anyone ignoring his message.

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

But is Sweden know for railroading people? I mean we are talking about Sweden here. Not exactly a place known terrible miscarriages of justice. I mean really? Sweden?

Re:The fix is in

[Minix]

When a country has decided to abandon (when expedient) the legal principles which give its legitimacy, all kinds of instability ensues.

I'm not surprised that people are left to speculate on what the US might do, because the US has recently and clearly demonstrated itself to be capable of gross and persistent violations of human rights (water boarding is torture) of due process (extraordinary rendition) and of deception, equivocation and spinning like a big old ferris wheel to justify these transgressions.

You can't really blame OP for fearing the worst when it comes to the USA's behaviour in these matters.

Re:The fix is in

[marcosdumay]

There has just been a trial, and he lost it, despite all the evidence.

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

It is your child. Have you ever seen a child support payment that really was equal to half the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, and medical care for the child? It doesn't happen. Guess what even when the wife remarries they are still YOUR FREAKING CHILDREN. The sad thing is that I really pity any kids you have since you feel that they are such a burden. if you do not have kids yet just go get snipped now and save them the shame and sadness of having a father that doesn't care enough to support them.

Wow "victims" of rape? Dud be a real man. Any man that whines about child support isn't a man. He is what you scrape off the bottom of your shoe. Sounds like you are one of those people that considers themselves a poor victim of an unfair system.

Re:The fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

" a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) " So he's the guy who didn't have a single criminal offense except for the criminal offenses. Sounds like the same logic his defense used.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

By 2013, Assange will be a convicted rapist rotting in a prison cell, and that is how the vast majority of the world will see him. The discrediting campaign is working wonderfully. Articles are already coming out about Wikileaks's demise, as if it's a foregone conclusion. The ending of the play is already written. Like I said, it was written before Assange even met his "victims."

Re:The fix is in

[Draek]

What I believe was the GP's point was that, if the law is going to treat the father as a glorified sperm donor, they should just go all the way. Hardly ideal, as I'd rather be considered a proper parent in the eyes of the law, but far more reasonable than the status quo.

Re:The fix is in

[Stooshie]

Have you ever stopped to wonder exactly why everyone outside your conspiracy theorist buddies in your mother's basement thinks you're a nutjob, and why nobody takes you seriously?

TFTFY!

Re:The fix is in

[dave420]

That's not how evidence works. Evidence is not the same as guesswork. Even famous people have bad luck. Coincidences still happen, even to people like Assange. Leaping to conclusions doesn't help anyone.

I'll wait 50 years.

Re:The fix is in

[c6gunner]

since living in gitmo isn't known for it's long survival rates

?????

I dunno what the hell you've been smoking, but living in gitmo is paradise compared to the shitholes that most of it's inmates come from. IIRC average weight gain for inmates is 15-20lbs. Not sure where these supposed short survival rates come in - are the prisoners dying from heart attacks after getting fat from eating too much cake?

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.

You're right - it'll never go through "traditional US courts" because the US has no interest in Assange. If they really wanted him out of the way, he would have choked on a peanut months ago. The guy is completely inconsequential - it's only his rabid fans that consider him important enough to go after.

Re:The fix is in

[NoSig]

Weirdly, your first point would indicate premeditation on the woman's part rather than absolve her. Assange was informed by the Swedish authorities that they did not want to question him before he left Sweden. Obviously we doesn't want to go back to Sweden given the farce that the Swedish authorities have made of the case so far.

Re:The fix is in

[Ra Zen]

It depends on you mean by the "whole play was written." Do you mean that the US had it in for Assange before the accusations came to light? That is certainly true. But exactly what they were doing about it is another matter. It is possible that one or both of the women were CIA plants, and there have been suggestions to that effect http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir09142010.html. However, while this is a plausible story, it doesn't seem likely nor is it necessary to explain events. Several things to remember: 1) Assange was trying to gain Swedish citizen at the time; 2) so, the US would have reason to put pressure on Sweden about the issue; 3) Sweden's interests mostly align with those of the US and they probably don't want to become known as a haven for international Robin Hoods, so they had their own reasons for not wanting to grant Assange a citizenship; 4) rape laws in Sweden have the lowest evidential bar in the entire world, essentially a woman can decide at any time after sex that she was assaulted, even if it was apparently mutual and she seemed to enjoy it; 5) there is a history in Sweden of women using these laws to their advantage, such as suing for large sums of money, that is has nothing to do with governmental pressure; 6) ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Assange is found innocent or guilty (for the US it would be a bonus, but not necessary), simply the charge of rape is enough to tarnish his image. So, I would suggest that if we were to be able to Wikileaks the behind the scenes chatter we would probably see some diplomatic pressure from the US on Sweden to find a way to deny Assange citizenship. We would likely also see internal pressure within the Swedish establishment to deny Assange citizenship. We would probably also see that he was watched closely by the authorities. When his sexual escapades came to light, it was hard to miss since one of the women tweeted them all over the net and the other texted to all her friends, there may or may not have been some suggestions given to those women that maybe he didn't treat them as nicely as they would have liked. However, it is also quite likely that the women came to the conclusion to accuse him on their own, given that some Swedish woman have used these laws for less than upright purposes. The "coincidence" of two women charging Assange at the same time can easily be explained by the fact that they talked to each other beforehand. Regardless of whether these charges were influenced by suggestion or not, the Swedish government certainly jumped at the opportunity. So, while it is possible that there were deep machinations involved, the events can easily be explained by conjunction of governmental business as usual (basic diplomatic pressure, and pressures internal to the Swedish system), Swedish rape laws, chance and jumping on opportunities when they arise.

Re:The fix is in

[NoSig]

Not if I asked if I was free to leave the country and the authorities said yes, and then didn't want to question me when I offered that. Then I would be quite surprised to be wanted by Interpol. The bizarre thing is that rape accusations are made public before the accusation has been investigated and seen to have any merit.

Re:The fix is in

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I know several people who formerly supported Assange and Wikileaks who now say, "To hell with Assange, he's a rapist," and by association now believe that Wikileaks has no credibility. Even in the unlikely event he's cleared of the charges, the damage is done -- and given the timing of the events, the idea that this was a deliberate smear campaign is not only credible, but ought to be the default assumption.

Re:The fix is in

[nomadic]

Uhhh....huh? The conviction rate for rape charges in the United States tends to be much, much smaller than for other violent crimes. Juries typically AREN'T sympathetic, actually.

Re:The fix is in

[Will.Woodhull]

Please remember that Assange has yet to even be charged with a crime.

Sweden is demanding the extradition to question him about a possible crime, but he has not been charged. He has offered to answer those questions in Britain, using any of several accepted means of deposition, but Sweden is saying that just isn't good enough; he has to be physically present in Sweden. This alone sounds bogus. Why would his answers be more valid in Sweden than anywhere else? Do the Swedes believe that Wonder Woman has cast her Rope of Truth around their borders?

The whole thing stinks. Including the law that the Swedes are trying to hang him with. A law that is not recognized anywhere else in Western culture, probably not in the world. A law that is an abject failure where the success rate of prosecutions is abysmal; whose dismal efforts to enforce it costs Sweden too much in both money and damage to society. A law that allows one gender to withdraw consent from an activity after having committed to that activity; that provides that gender with a legal form of entrapment. This is not the way to protect womens' rights, nor to control STDs. It is a law that needs to be either modified to make it realistic or just rescinded.

Re:The fix is in

[Wyatt Earp]

When I lived in Israel I met a lot of Swedish, Norwegian and Danish people, alot of folks from up there did the Kibbutz thing in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and their kids go back to relive what Mom and Dad did.

Outed CIA spies don't go to Israel, they go for debrief in the Quantico Virginia area.

Re:The fix is in

[c6gunner]

If it's your brat, you* should pay for its upkeep.

Really? Why?

No matter how you slice it, the current system sucks. Take the case of an unintended pregnancy. If I get a woman pregnant, and she decides to have an abortion, I don't have a say in the matter. If she decides to keep the child, I don't get a say in the matter. Whether or not I shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars depends solely on what decision she makes. How is that fair?

Alternately, consider an intentional pregnancy in a marriage, followed by a divorce. Unless the woman has become a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute, there's zero chance I'll get sole custody. On the other hand, if she wants sole custody, all she has to do is claim I was an abusive husband and chances are she'll get it.

How is any of that fair? If I don't have a legal right to decide whether the child is born in the first place, and the legal system has the ability to take away my child on the say-so of a third party, why in the world should I feel any responsibility to pay for it? To use Slashdots favourite form of analogy, it's as if a GM rep came to me and said "You owe us $50,000 for this car we made, but you don't get to drive it".

Do you honestly see that as an equitable arrangement?

Re:The fix is in

[Scrameustache]

I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they?

Just in case you've not seen it because you were looking elsewhere, here's the vice president of the United State explaining why he's getting involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

Re:The fix is in

[freak132]

Normally that might apply but this is a man who is going out of his way to embarrass powerful people and knows it. Politicians are calling for his assasination in some parts of the West. He had by this point already published the War Logs and who knows what else that already had the American government angry and was moving around frequently in countries with strong free speech laws and strong courts.
Sure, not a traditional thing for an innocent man, but fairly traditional for someone who's pissed off powerful people in government. He's not necessarily innocent but one can't infer it by the usual means with all the political clout bearing down on him and his lifestyle of a hunted man.

Re:The fix is in

[Xaositecte]

Yes, they're still your freaking children, and you should be able to have a good chance of being awarded custody.

The primary complaint I have with the existing justice system is that it will award custody of children to the mother unless it can be overwhelmingly proven that she's unfit to be raising her children. The bar for a man to be denied visitation rights is much lower comparatively, and child support will continue to be paid. It's entirely possible to have a situation where a man is barred from seeing his children, but must continue to pay child support for them. Leads to an awful lot of bitterness.

Re:The fix is in

[Cederic]

Have you ever seen a child support payment that really was equal to half the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, and medical care for the child? It doesn't happen.

Which fantasy world are you living in? How about a man that was jailed because he's refusing to pay significantly more than half of the cost of feeding, clothing, housing and caring for his children:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1985796.ece

Or ignoring whether it's half the costs of caring for the children, is 80% of a man's income a fair amount to take? No wonder the guy killed himself:
http://www.mensrights.com.au/Men_Suicide_Statistics_Australia/Australian_Father_Suicide_Victim_Hounded_Over_Child_Support-Canberra_Times_15NOV2000.aspx

Oh, and it's not rosy in the US either. Check the stats from New Hampshire before you go on another sexist rant:
http://ulocal.wmur.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=63455&w=177326&d=570454

Any man that whines about child support isn't a man.

Any woman that wants me to pay for her children lets them grow up in my house. I don't raise them, I don't pay for them. I'm not dealing with the stress and hassle of working for a living if I have to give my income away to someone. I'd rather quit my job and raise my children myself.

If you don't like that, don't fuck me or plan for an abortion.

Re:The fix is in

[praxis]

I believe LWATCDR was speaking of the trial to resolve the rape charges, and not the trial to resolve whether to extradite. Just because Britain deems the charges legitimate and extradition permissible by its guidelines does not mean the rape trial is over and done with just yet.

Re:The fix is in

[praxis]

Why do you not think Assange would have done to him what we have done to many other people already for reasons even more flimsy? We have our statesmen and women calling for his summary execution, imprisonment without due process doesn't exactly seem like much of a stretch.

Re:The fix is in

[advocate_one]

he was perfectly OK until he announced that they were planning to release the dirt on a major US finacial house... the banks etc. are the one who're really pulling the strings here, NOT the governments...

Re:The fix is in

[Duradin]

Those "states"men and women wouldn't be allowed into their party if they didn't show what good "real" Americans they were by howling for some "furner's" blood that dared cross America.

Re:The fix is in

[LWATCDR]

The get yourself fixed! To many whinny ass sperm donors like you going around and taking no responsibility for their actions. But hey just print out that post and hand it to any woman that you start to date and we will call it fair.

Re:The fix is in

[Knuckles]

And I thought the US is largely into Christianity.

Re:The fix is in

[gknoy]

Especially when the government has taken steps to argue that it does NOT need to be bound by the treaties prohibiting things like that, that the places where it happens do not need to follow US law, and that it's not torture anyways. The world gets nervous when we say things like that.

Re:The fix is in

[Duradin]

Man's choice: have sex.

Woman's choices:
    -have sex
    -get pregnant
    -remain pregant
    -keep spawn.

Unless there is some sort of binding agreement or status if the guy doesn't want the kid it doesn't seem like he should have to pay for it since it really wasn't his choice.

Re:The fix is in

[gknoy]

Many people would rather live in squalor than be well fed in prison. Gitmo has a reputation for being a human black hole -- only rarely does someone actually ever leave it, and at least one has died before getting to court.

Re:The fix is in

[Knuckles]

You know, not so long ago we found out that the US government, being in cahoots with local governments of even EU members, abducted people, put them into black vans, flew them across the World while trying to erase flight records, and stuck them into secret prisons where they were tortured and never to be seen again. A few years earlier we learned that the US government, being in cahoots with local governments even of EC members, had founded or infiltrated terrorist groups, who killed leading politicians and company managers, and had created large secret weapons caches all over Europe, all to further civil unrest in Europe in order to justify increased oppression. No surprise that fear levels sometimes get out of control.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

Leaping to conclusions doesn't help anyone.

Too bad you're not the Swedish prosecutor.

Re:The fix is in

[Knuckles]

You're right - it'll never go through "traditional US courts" because the US has no interest in Assange. If they really wanted him out of the way, he would have choked on a peanut months ago.

The US really, really wanted Castro out of the way and launched how many assassination attempts?

Re:The fix is in

[Knuckles]

Thanks.

Re:The fix is in

[Lumpy]

The people you know then are incredibly shallow and uneducated. You really need to find a higher caliber of people to associate with if they are that easily manipulated.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

The bizarre thing is that rape accusations are made public before the accusation has been investigated and seen to have any merit.

It's not bizarre if one of the real goals is to publicly discredit him. Then it makes perfect sense.

Re:The fix is in

[mosb1000]

How about this?

Re:The fix is in

[Lumpy]

"When a country has decided to abandon (when expedient) the legal principles which give its legitimacy, all kinds of instability ensues."

what are you talking about... the United states has abandoned the constitution for close to 50 years now and nothing has happened except the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful.... It's a good thing to abandon the legal principles that give you legitimacy! WE are fighting the "Communists" or "Terrorists" depending on what era you want to look at in the last 50 years.

Re:The fix is in

[Lumpy]

"Unless the woman has become a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute, there's zero chance I'll get sole custody."

Incorrect. I was able to get custody of my daughter in my divorce. It cost me nearly $60,000 in lawyers fees to do it, and a lawsuit against the friend of the court, but I did it.

Money buys judicial outcome. Nothing else matters in a court of law.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

And I bet that if you had posted any of that on /. at the time it was actually happening, most posters would call you crazy for saying that the U.S. could be doing this kind of stuff. You would get several [citation needed] responses, several "But the EU doesn't answer to the U.S." responses, and several "You're just a conspiracy theorist" posts. Basically, you would get the same response that we're seeing here today.

This scummy stuff always comes out after-the-fact. But by then, of course, it's usually too late. One day, some reporter will do an expose on the campaign to discredit/imprison Assange (when some Deep Throat at the Pentagon or CIA gives leaks him the truth), or the relevant documents will be declassified (about 50 years from now, if we're lucky). But by then, Assange will be rotting in a prison (or dead) and Wikileaks will be long gone.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

Whether the women were actual agents, hired plants, or paid off/threatened/manipulated after-the-fact; I don't know. But I do know those charges are bullshit, and that SOMEONE (I would bet CIA, but there are other possibilities) was manipulating this situation pretty early on.

Re:The fix is in

[NoSig]

Certainly. What I'm referring to is that, generally in the world, rape accusation victims are not kept anonymous. That's OK if the accused is guilty but often that is not the case. With Assange it's even worse than normal with the police themselves apparently directly informing the press about it to give it wide exposure. The accused shouldn't first hear about such a thing by reading the newspaper.

Re:The fix is in

[Cederic]

I'm very happy to take responsibility for my actions. I'm just not funding a lavish lifestyle for some bitch that wont let me raise my own children.

Is that wrong?

Re:The fix is in

[c6gunner]

Exactly.

Re:The fix is in

[c6gunner]

Incorrect. I was able to get custody of my daughter in my divorce. It cost me nearly $60,000 in lawyers fees to do it, and a lawsuit against the friend of the court, but I did it.

Congrats. I'm glad things worked out for you. Don't make the mistake of thinking that your case is common.

Money buys judicial outcome. Nothing else matters in a court of law.

These people would beg to disagree. Reguardless, even if it were true, it has nothing to do with what I said.

Re:The fix is in

[Zironic]

They don't do long distance interrogation especially as their next step in the process could be to arrest you, which is hard to do over the phone, and they see it as the defendants duty to come to them rather then them coming to the defendant.

Re:The fix is in

[poetmatt]

About how many prisoners have been released from gitmo, and/or had a real trial?

Hint: less than 1, whole numbers only.

You don't have to kill someone to make them effectively nullified from existence. All it takes is a life sentence without parole.

Re:The fix is in

[bug1]

Assange will be a convicted rapist rotting in a prison cell, and that is how the vast majority of the world will see him.

You think the countries in the middle of a democratic revolution will forget that wikileaks releases helped get the ball moving ?

He has been offered citizenship in countries and is respected all over the world because of his ideals, and the fact that that he lives by them.

A lot of the people that he has stood up for wont forget, and there a lots of them.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

I guarantee you that they'll have forgotten him long before he ever gets out of that cell.

Re:The fix is in

[BJ_Covert_Action]

But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world.

Turned into a rapist? Nah. Felt very good about the things he had accomplished, thus getting a booster shot to his ego? Sure. A booster shot that coupled with a semi-infamous reputation which more and more people were starting to hear about in order to make it easier for him to get laid? Twice? Sure, sounds feasible.

You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other.

Random chance? Nah. The fact that his name was starting to take on a bit of a celebrity appeal, the same type of celebrity appeal that convinces sexually insecure women to fuck total douchebags on a regular basis? Sure, that sounds reasonable to me. The women pressing charges bit? Well women who are sexually insecure enough to sleep around with someone just because they have a semi-famous name tend to also be the kind of women that are fucking crazy and will drum up fake charges just to cover up their own bad decisions. I've met enough crazy women that have such low self-esteem that when they make a bad decision they try to blame someone else. That doubles in sexual situations and, yes, I have seen women use false rape charges to do nothing more than salve their own wounded dignity. It's sad, but it is neither uncommon nor difficult in our current society.

You keep believing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg isn't a plant who's part of a larger effort to discredit Assange by any means necessary, or that these bullshit charges aren't a part of that effort either.

A plant? Sure, he could be. Or he could be an ego maniac. And Asssange could be an ego maniac. And when you put two ego maniacs in a room together you get exactly the type of fallout we are seeing here. A cause like wiki-leaks tends to attract like minded folk. It appeals to people who want to enact a radical change in their lifetime, by really sticking it to those who are in power. Furthermore, it attracts people who see themselves as the "good guy" who are squaring off alone (or with a very small group of underdogs) against the "bad guys." It wouldn't surprise me in the least if both Julian and Daniel fit this personality type to some extent and, when confronting each other over disagreements, had severe falling outs.

Look I'll be the first to admit that my government (and I say my not out of pride but because, as an American citizen, I feel very responsible for their actions) is completely fucking retarded from time to time. Hell, I've bitched about how evil they appear to be on more than one occasion. But I also know that the folks getting elected to office are drama queens, incompetent, complete morons, and generally overworked, under informed, idealistic, misguided people. I know that because I've met a few of them, and they remind me wholesale of the folks I went to high school with that also fit all those descriptions.
So when it comes right down to it, if you want to believe in some sort of massive conspiracy cover up, you go right the hell ahead. But frankly, I am not going to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by the general shortfalls of human nature. That's what this whole damn debacle reminds me of, a bunch of people with slightly fucked personalities (hell, we all have a slightly fucked personality) that just happened to get together in the right set of circumstances to turn the whole thing into a circus. Think of it like the perfect reality T.V. storm.

So sure, call it a conspiracy. I'll call it stupidity. Fifty years from now, we'll see who was right. Based on the previous track record of conspiracy theorists, I think my odds are pretty good.

Re:The fix is in

[Dodgy G33za]

Have you ever seen a child support payment that really was equal to half the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, and medical care for the child?

Yep. I pay $950 a month. And bear in mind this is after I gave my ex the house and the car. For the record, in my case I don't mind. But you can't deny the system is rigged in favour of women in many countries, which is what the OP was on about.

Re:The fix is in

[Dodgy G33za]

The man also chooses whether to take precautions to prevent birth. If they don't, or they trust their partner to manage it, they take a risk...

Re:The fix is in

[Duradin]

I doubt wearing a condom will get a guy out of child support payments if she still gets pregnant.

The woman can choose to use birth control pills, morning after pills, or physical abortions to prevent conception or terminate it, with no input from the man, since it's her body. She chooses to have the kid. He doesn't get a choice on paying for what is almost entirely her choice.

Re:The fix is in

[mywhitewolf]

you know your referring to the voting public right?

Re:The fix is in

[bug1]

I guarantee you that they'll have forgotten him long before he ever gets out of that cell.

Oh, a guarantee from a random internet person, i am beaten then. No possible logic could overcome such powerful language :(

Re:The fix is in

[Anonymous Coward]

it's already been stated that cellphone mms logs exist of the 2 women colluding to set assange up. the judge is refusing to let them be used in court, but assange's lawyer was able to review them privately and wants to be able to introduce use them (obviously).

Re:The fix is in

[mywhitewolf]

if it goes to a jury they almost always side with the victim. the problem is it almost never goes to a jury. they listen to your evidence, then they attempt to charge the accused, its then up to the accused to poke holes in the arguments until it gets dismissed from court. if it goes to a jury trial then there is a good chance they will be found guilty of at least some charges unless they have a really good lawyer, nothing says justice like lots of money.

Re:The fix is in

[nomadic]

About how many prisoners have been released from gitmo, and/or had a real trial?

Uhhhh, many?

Re:The fix is in

[Lunzo]

How does allegedly tampering with a condom make one a rapist? Sure if he did it it's a sexual crime, but it's not rape.

I guess its too much to expect facts to be reported. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Re:The fix is in

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world. You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other. You keep believing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg isn't a plant who's part of a larger effort to discredit Assange by any means necessary, or that these bullshit charges aren't a part of that effort either. You keep believing that some of us didn't see this discrediting campaign coming even as Assange was stepping off that plane in Sweden.

That, or I will maintain a healthy scepticism, and won't draw conclusions until I seem some evidence.

Oh wait, never mind. I temporarily forgot where I was.

Re:The fix is in

[Lumpy]

Yes it does, honestly you have not spent much tine in courts. Money talks, Period. I don't care where you live, unless you live where a dictator runs everything, if you have courts that are screwed up like the US courts, then MONEY is all you need to get what you want in the courts. Problem is, most people don't have money. I was able to outspend my ex and thus got physical custody. it applies DIRECTLY to what you said.

  "Unless the woman has become a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute, there's zero chance I'll get sole custody."

Those are YOUR words, my response was to those words and the content of the sentence, and therefore applies to it perfectly.

Re:The fix is in

[elrous0]

This guarantee redeemable at your local Baskin Robbins.

Doesn't make sense

[currently_awake]

What I don't get is how they can extradite him to sweden if he's not even facing charges there. It's going to look really funny when his plane arrives and he just walks away to find a hotel. Shouldn't sweden be required to at least say they plan to file charges?

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Shimbo]

What I don't get is how they can extradite him to sweden if he's not even facing charges there.

There is rather extensive discussion in the judgement but what it boils down to is that formal charges are put rather later in the Swedish system than would be the case in the UK or the US.

Judgement

[Martin Spamer]

The Judgement

Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge: ... "I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden." Assange has seven days to appeal the decision.

He also said that Hurtig (Assange's Swedish Lawyer) is an "unreliable witness".

Ms Ny (Swedish Prosecutor) notified Mr Hurtiq at 0911 on September 27th that she had decided to arrest Assange, he left Sweden the afternoon of the same day ahead of schedule. Hurtiq claimed he was not told until 30th September."

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. Judge states "In fact this is untrue", "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake." and "The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."

Mr Robertson, (Assenge's British Lawyer) accepted that onward extradition to Gitmo was without merit excluding it from final argument.

Judge final statement "In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden."

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[enaso1970]

Your post is insufficiently slavish. Are we not beautiful? Are we not brilliant? Are our fashion choices not spectacular? Off with your head!

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Arkham]

I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.

TLDR: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW/OLD GOVERNMENT OVERLORDS.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[lxt]

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

.

Why would the US government want him now?

[morgauxo]

It would be stupid for the US government to bring him here at this time. Even here in the US there are still enough free thinkers left to make that controversial. If he gets convicted in Sweden then he is out of their hair anyway. Worse than that his reputation is thoroughly trashed and would probably never recover. If he is extradited the opposite could occur, he could become a martyr. If the US got involved at all I think it would be to ensure the outcome of the rape trial, not to extradite him. I'm sure they will be watching the trial closely and extradite him if it looks like he might get off though.

Re:Why would the US government want him now?

[betterunixthanunix]

There are also enough free thinkers left to make the war on drugs controversial, but that has not stopped anyone. There are enough free thinkers who question corporate welfare, but that does not stop the government either. So why would free thinkers have any effect on the government's policies with Assange?

Re:I hope he get a fair trial

[enaso1970]

Congratulations! You have floored me with your ignorance and that is hard to do these days. It could very well turn into those kinds of outcomes but the people I met (and yes, I was in Egypt until three weeks ago) and the staff I know there were not fighting for those things. They've lived for decades in a police state. Taking your insightful approach only makes your outcomes likely though. I'm pretty sure the British weren't all that complementary about the motives of them darned, religious American revolutionaries...

Sorry, you are wrong.

[Toy G]

The Egyptian revolt was led, among others, by Coptic Christians tired of being abused by Islamic fanatics while a tyrannical government won't lift a finger to defend them. The Moroccan dynasty is based on Sharia law and Islam, but still people are protesting there. And obviously the Iranian movement is about *less* power to Islamic authorities...

So I guess you don't know much about "People in North Africa" and what they fight for, after all, dear Coward.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[elrous0]

Doubleplus good response, citizen!

That's 10 stars, so you get to pick a toy out of the chest today!

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Anne_Nonymous]

So if you get raped in a Swedish prison, do they have to ask real nice first?

Let justice be served

[the_real_nugator]

I'm a swede, I trust our justice system and I'm a bit tired of all the conspiracy theories circling around.

What if Assange actually committed the crimes he's been accused for, shouldn't he face the consequences?

I've got a cousin who is a journalist and met Assange during his time here in Sweden at a party.
My cousin and his colleagues noted that he had a sleazy approach to women. This was before the accusations.
Not saying that he is guilty, just saying that I'm not surprised of the accusations and don't think that Assange should be handled in any other way than you and me.

Re:Let justice be served

[the_real_nugator]

Yes:
Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Extradition#Exemptions_in_the_European_Union
But:
I slutet av november häktades han i sin frånvaro misstänkt för en våldtäkt, två fall av sexuellt ofredande och ett fall av olaga tvång.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/assange-utlamnas-till-sverige
Which means:
In late November he was arrested in his absence on suspicion of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one case of duress.

And as far as I know rape is a crime in the UK.

Re:Let justice be served

[Hatta]

Rape in the UK is not the same as rape in Sweden.

Re:Let justice be served

[the_real_nugator]

Yes you are right but it seems like the judge ruled that he can be extradited to Sweden which means that the crimes he's been accused for in Sweden is also punishable in the UK.

Re:Let justice be served

[Hatta]

Or the judge is corrupt.

Re:Let justice be served

[Draek]

[I] don't think that Assange should be handled in any other way than you and me.

Neither do I, but I like to entertain the thought that my country wouldn't put on an international warrant for me for the (alleged) heinous crime of not putting on a condom--particularly when I'm also wanted by a corrupt superpower with a history of kidnapping and torturing people they don't like--and I'd like the same courtesy to be extended to Mr. Assange.

Re:Let justice be served

[0111 1110]

My cousin and his colleagues noted that he had a sleazy approach to women. This was before the accusations.

What does that even mean? Your cousin met him at a party and right there and then decided that he was probably a rapist? What was he doing at the party that made him seem guilty of having a "sleazy approach to women"?

Re:Let justice be served

[the_real_nugator]

Or he misinterpreted the law, or he became crazy, or he's never been a judge but a CIA agent the whole time. Of course, there are many explanations, I'll stick with the most plausible explanation. The chances of extradition from Sweden to the US is not larger than extradition from the UK to the US.

Re:Let justice be served

[Hatta]

When you're talking about government officials, corruption is always the most plausible explanation. Even the ones who are honest themselves are corrupted by way of honestly following a corrupt system.

SOP

[Thud457]

Just like they tried to smear Bob Lazar with pandering charges!

Re:From Zero to Zero

[blue trane]

freedom to pursue happiness as a troll is a self-evident, unalienable right.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Dachannien]

I'm pretty sure the guys with the black helicopters aren't mystified by sarcasm.

He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[Toze]

The US constitution doesn't permit warrantless seizure of property, either, but the DHS can do it within 100 miles of the border. Maybe your faith in the constitution shouldn't extend to the politicians responsible for maintaining it.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[mckinnsb]

Incorrect. There were several exemptions made to ex post facto laws, even ones which led to eventual punishment, all on different grounds, and its hard to imagine "national security" couldn't be one of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

...and it's not like the United States has blatantly ignored the Constitution before, right? You might know about the IRS?

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[schnell]

The US constitution doesn't permit warrantless seizure of property, either, but the DHS can do it within 100 miles of the border.

The Constitution is not as malleable as this example appears to show it is. The Constitution protects citizens against "unreasonable" search and seizure, not warrantless search and seizure. If courts have determined that within 100 miles of the border there is a high incidence of smuggling, human trafficking etc. that justifies warrantless seizure in some cases then legally that is considered "reasonable."

It's funny to me how both the American far Right and the left-leaning Slashdot both somehow see the Obama administration as this engine of terror and lawlessness that is unstoppable in its quest to deprive them of life, liberty and property (real or downloaded) ... Honestly, the weather here is really not that bad once you take off the tinfoil hat.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Two-thirds of the US population lives in the "border zone". I guess it's reasonable for 200 million Americans to be subject to warrantless searches. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[dkleinsc]

You're under the false assumption the US government is following its own laws or constitution. If you need any proof of that, ask the US citizens who have been imprisoned in Gitmo for the crime of having unpopular beliefs about an invisible man in the sky. Oh, wait - you can't, because some of them are dead and the rest being held incommunicado.

If the US gets hold of Assange, is he more likely to:
A. Receive a fair trial in a court of law, where he can explain in great detail the corruption he exposed
B. Get thrown in Gitmo with no way of getting tried or getting out
C. Get sent to one of our allies in an unsavory place as part of 'extraordinary rendition'

I'm not betting on A.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[dryeo]

The US constitution doesn't allow any laws against freedom of speech either yet the shield law seems to be anti-speech.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[blueg3]

The only real danger would be if he continued to be associated with Wikileaks after the law is passed, assuming Wikileaks continues to host the material and that hosting it is considered publication.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[qmaqdk]

The US Constitution does not permit **any** ex post facto laws.

It also has a fourth amendment. Doesn't seem to make a difference.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[Hatta]

The US Constitution doesn't permit lots of things. Can't remember the last time anyone cared.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[blueg3]

Are you referring to the IRS whose constitutionality is established by the 16th Amendment?

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[mayberry42]

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.

Really? And who's to stop them? The US Gov't has violated the constitution times before; no reason to stop now. Conspiracy theorists, with or without good reason, could cite more sinister possibilities, although I think he's too high profile to just "commit suicide". Just my $0.02.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[GodfatherofSoul]

You had me up until your kookie comment about the IRS.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[mckinnsb]

Yeah, that was a little off the chain. I was more alluding to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which 9th Court declared as beyond review, but it still seems like a sham that an amendment is ratified as soon as the Secretary of State is given authority to declare it so. (i.e, it is beyond review at that point). I'm not sure thats "constitutional", but I am not a member of the Tea Party. So there.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[Xaositecte]

While you're correct that several exemptions have been made for ex post facto laws, all of those exemptions are clear examples of congress and the Supreme Court using the constitution as toilet paper.

"It's okay because it doesn't constitute punishment." Even though it's punishing people Ex Post facto.

"It's okay because it's civil law, and ex post facto only applies to criminal law" Even though that's ridiculous.

"It's okay because it's regulatory." Even though the regulations have criminal consequences, making it a criminal law, AND it's punishing people.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[T.E.D.]

The ATF can do it too ("war on drugs"), as can the IRS (Treasury Department). It would almost be easier to list who can't sieze your property without a warrant...

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[Darinbob]

It still all falls down to the logic of "it could happen therefore it will happen, because Assange is the holy savior and the US is the devil".

You may as well overturn all extradition laws in every country in the world under that logic. After all, even if we extradited someone to Switzerland there is an extremely minute chance that they'd introduce the death penalty and 5 minute tribunals. It's an absurd notion, but it fits the logic of "it could happen".

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[T.E.D.]

More likely he's talking about the IRS who can sieze whatever property of yours they want if they feel you owe money, leaving you to prove that you are innocent and deserve it back.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[sjames]

There are many things the U.S. Constitution does not permit. Ask our "guests" in Gitmo how well that's working.

Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act

[drsmithy]

It's funny to me how both the American far Right and the left-leaning Slashdot [...]

Slashdot is "left leaning" ?! Maybe if Reagan was your idea of the centre.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Lobachevsky]

You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Richard_at_work]

Heh, reading the ruling makes for quite an amusing time :) The defence witness Brita Sundberg-Weitman seems to make quite a fool of her self in front of the court, admitting that much of what she is complaining about is either not in her expertise or is solely based on information supplied by the defence and no one else, as was the case with a second defence witness Sven-Eric Alhem who also agreed that under the same circumstances he would have also issued the extradition warrant request!

Theres loads of similar stuff in there - he never stood a chance.

Yeeaaaaa!!!

[johnlcallaway]

Now maybe they will through his loser ass in jail so we don't have to listen to his egotistical, whiney voice anymore. It's always about Assange, no matter if it's WikiLeaks or this legal issue. 'Look at me look at me look at me' is really all he ever says. He doesn't give a crap about exposing anyone, he is just an attention whore.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[jank1887]

best comment ever. mod parent up, +1 awesome.

hey folks you know what?

[circletimessquare]

it's just one guy. wikileaks is larger than one man. assange knows this. you should know it to

it's a failure of most people that we get all caught up in the personalities, and forget the principles. it's true of anything political

say the USA lock assange up for the rest of his life. and? will that stop wikileaks? will that stop people from using wikileaks or bringing material to wikileaks? will that stop other wikileaks-like projects?

whatever!

the IDEA matters, the PERSON is irrelevant. assange would be the first to say this to you. they can do anything they want to him, they haven't destroyed his fame, and what made his name, and the idea he started

you can assassinate a man. you can smear his good name. but you can't stop HIS IDEA

THAT'S what is important

one man is brought down, but the cause continues unabated. i'm not afraid, are you afraid? i'm angered, are you angered?

so stop freaking out over the personality, focus on the principles. nothing's changed

Re:hey folks you know what?

[dkleinsc]

It's true that if they throw Assange in prison, what Wikileaks has started continues, but there is real reason for concern.

If they can do this to Assange for the crime of embarrassing the US government, then they can do it to anyone who speaks out with any real effectiveness against current government policies. There are also far too many who would like to kill or at the very least blacklist journalists for saying or writing something embarrassing to people in power.

The goal of those people is to erase the freedom of speech if that speech becomes too effective. If they succeed, it will make the McCarthy hearings look like a picnic by comparison (and I write that as someone whose grandfather was a victim of those hearings).

Re:hey folks you know what?

[circletimessquare]

i don't understand your thinking. you believe it is possible to tame the beast and make it act responsibly

i don't believe that. the beast is the beast. you need weapons to skewer it, its the only thing it understands. we have a weapon, wikileaks, to skewer the beast. you believe somehow that the beast can be made to act civilized and moral. LOL. good to luck to you friend. this is a brawl in a pit with a thug, not a civics lesson. your entire understanding of the nature of what you are up against is all wrong. mccarthy didn't die, and he never will. you need to skewer him, not tame him, and by skewer i mean do to mccarthy what mccarthy would do to his smear victims: embarrass him and humble him into submission. except not with lies, but with the truth of their duplicitous ways

Re:hey folks you know what?

[circletimessquare]

i don't fucking care. i think the protesters in the middle east should have taught you something about how well fear really works when principles are at stake

Official ruling (pdf)

[grimJester]

Here

I haven't read it completely through yet, but it seems mostly reasonable. Assange's Swedish lawyer Hurtig is seen as unreliable and willfully deceiving. AT the very least he screwed up with some dates.

On (Brita Sundberg-Weitman's comments on) Marianne Ny:

She was then taken to the main passage of which complaint was made, where it says: âoeMarianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings (criminal prosecutions) have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convictedâ. She appeared to understand this passage as saying that everyone who is prosecuted is guilty and had difficulty in accepting that another interpretation is simply that there are occasions when a man is prosecuted and, for whatever reason, acquitted even though he may have been guilty. She did not appear to accept that there is a public interest in prosecuting, where the evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal. It appears that the witnessâ(TM)s main objection to the paragraph quoted was a reference to âoeperpetratorsâ on the basis that the word is objectionable and biased.

I'd disagree with the "there are occasions when"-interpretation here exactly because Ny only talks about "perpetrators". The main argument against her policy of having the accused in jail to provide comfort for the victim is that some people really are innocent, people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and she avoids that thought completely. Swedish original, pages 8-9 for the interested.

Re:He didn't rape them

[stupid_is]

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

May I be the first to say

[splatter]

Good, and good riddance. He allegedly did something against the law in the country he was in and needs to go face that charge otherwise he is simply a coward. This has nothing to do with some conspiracy theory that the US is out to get him because of his job, trust me if the US charges wiki leaks or him with something they will TRY and extradite him no matter where he resides jail is just a plus.

This all smells of a lawer smoke screen to get pity on an possible sexual deviant / predator and certainly a coward afraid to face his charges, either way not exactly a role model.

 

Re:May I be the first to say

[splatter]

You are not a lawyer. Neither are you probably a swede so stop trying to debate the case. He was charged and should answer said charges not hide like a coward.

So, before you attempt to troll how about a big mug 'o STFU.

Re:May I be the first to say

[unity100]

i dont need to be a lawyer. for some reason, part of my post didnt make it. here it is :

two women discover each other, one suddenly decides to seek her 'options'. goes talks to police. no charges filed.

swedish prosecutor drops a case. another prosecutor also drops case.

right wing politician pressurizes the second prosecutor to reopen the case.

prosecutor fabricates a 'rape condition' as in 'if you have consentual sex two times, and in the second time your condom pops and you dont stop, its a rape'.

with this brain-damaged rationale, which puts maybe 30-40% of world population in rapists' shoes, a charge is filed. the women STILL havent charged him with ANYthing up till date. everything happens in between a prosecutor in central sweden, far away from where women are living and talked to police, and a fucked up politician.

prosecutor's office, DESPITE knowing where assange lived, DESPITE having to contact him by law, do NOT contact him, but instead issue an arrest warrant for him. if they had contacted him, as they were obliged by law, they were not going to be able to arrest him.

seeing the rate things are going, to the point of a swedish prosecutor's office not refraining from violating swedish LAW, assange leaves sweden.

fast forward to today - you, in all in your uninformed morondom, spread shit out of your mouth instead of your anus in slashdot.

Extradition Lawyer's assessment of the extradition

[seyyah]

A few days back, a British extradition lawyer analysed the defence team's arguments in the Guardian: Julian Assange is very likely to be extradited, says Matrix barrister.

Looks like he was right.

Re:He didn't rape them

[CodeBuster]

So yes, I agree with parent, this is CIA work.

Assange knew or should have known that the intelligence agencies of this world would use female agents to entrap him. Indeed, the East Germans were famous for this tactic, employing it time and again to recruit spies in Western Europe during the Cold War years (i.e. you will do what we say or else we publish the scandalous evidence of the affair). This is a variation of the classic gambit, social mores about affairs having changed somewhat in the last 40 years, but still effective it seems.

Finally shoot the messenger

[microbox]

And then finally then the US will be able to shoot the messenger!

1. Then the problem will have ceased to exist
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

If you're with us, then you're a winner.

Re:He didn't rape them

[v1]

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

They're "interpreting" the laws in the attempt to extradite him. It's one of those "he's accused of A and accused of B, but not accused of C. But we're going to say that A+B amounts to C, and we have a law against C, so put him on the plane."

In this case I believe they're trying to say that he deceived them into thinking he was wearing a condom when he had sex with them, and they're painting that as "sexual assault" even though there's a separate more specific law for that. (which does not allow for extradition... oh that's a problem now isn't it?) Unless he beat the women with the condom he didn't wear, I don't see how any sensible person can call that "assault". They are then stretching "sexual assault" into "rape", which is again an unreasonable thing. There's absolutely no logical way to relabel deception as assault as rape. This is only being done because it's the closest fit they could find that would allow for extradition. It's like charging a mugger with attempted murder by saying they stole someone's grocery money and concluding they might starve to death.

I'm waiting for the ultimate irony, for someone to leak some actual facts from these two ladies and for it to be posted... on wikileaks.

Translation from Swedish

[grimJester]

Swedish original, pages 8-9 for the interested.

(Translation isn't really good English; I tried to be as literal as possible)

Only when the man is in custody (Swedish term translates to "freedom deprived") and the woman in calm and peace has the time to get some perspective on her life, she has a chance to discover how shes been treated.

Through the legal process ("lagforing", maybe "taking into the legal process"), the judiciary switches the responsibility onto the one who resorts to violence. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that the legal process has a good effect as protection for the woman, even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty ("domd", condemned?)

Note that there's half a page of text between these two paragraphs, so one can't really say omitting the first is obviously taking the second out of context.

Yes, I would

[SmallFurryCreature]

If suddenly two black left wing women who know each other had sex with Glen Beck and then came up with a TECHINICAL rape charge, I would be highly suspicious as well. Lets not forget that this is NOT the kind of rape most of the world would regonize. They did NOT say no to sex, they said no to unprotected sex, then had sex with a condom of their OWN free will, then cried rape when the condom broke. Come on, in most of the world the police would ignore this AND that is what happened until an investigator with an agenda stepped in.

It is all a little bit to convenient. In the vast majority of the world he would not even be under investigation. Only in Sweden can you be charged with rape when a woman agrees to have sex with you.

And gosh it just happened when the US and its leaders (the banks, you don't think some black guy has anything to say do you) are highly upset with him AND we then get leaks of plans to discredit Assange. Oh yeah, those plans were of a later date. So this means NOBODY else could have come up with the same plans earlier?

No, I smell a rat.

Re:Yes, I would

[LWATCDR]

It seems that is the law in Sweden. If this really just that then he will get off. You may be right that there is a rate but the rate may just be publicity seekers and not some big government conspiracy.

And a new point just so that I am not mixing issues too much.
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO BRING RACE INTO IT?
Good greif guess what there are white people that would do the same thing. Man I hate bigots and liberal bigots are the worst! Why would a women's race make her more or less believable!
  And there are conservative African Americans!
Yes I know that is slight off point but really!

Re:Yes, I would

[trollertron3000]

Thank God for modern media and the US intelligence agencies fostering their bogeyman images. Otherwise we might think things that happen are caused by coincidence or are real. No no, it's all a facade by the globalist cabal. Project blue beam is sending down holographic images of Assange raping women and the CIA can project this into your brain using nanites sprayed from UFO chemtrails and turned into pixie dust by HAARP.

Is this really the most likely scenario? Or is the most likely scenario the fact that this might be real and he might actually have committed these crimes? Is wikileaks discredited? No. Will they continue spreading info? Yes. If there's a conspiracy it's being carried out by fools that can't do their job.

The US loves this type of thing. They get to basically do nothing and the whole world thinks they're all reaching.

Re:Yes, I would

[BlackSnake112]

The condom didn't break. They had sex. Later on she was woken up by Assange having sex with her again. She asked if he as using a condom. He replied "you". Meaning that she was the condom. He was not using a condom. She should have cried foul and made him stop. But she let him continue. In Sweden, unwanted unprotected sex can be a crime. That is the law there.

The whole thing is messed up to me. We are almost at the point where people need a contract signed in front of a few lawyers to have sex.

Re:Yes, I would

[Stregano]

I am sorry, but this is a very, very ignorant post dude. Yes, they had sex before, but she woke up to Assange having sex with her again another time. That right there, regardless of if it was protected or not is enough even in the US to prosecute on rape charges. As for hanging out afterwards, well, I take it you have never been raped and not been the unpopular person. See, I know from my sister, who was not very popular, that when you are raped, sometimes you are even scared to bring up charges. I mean, a person who is all over the news like Assange might scare a woman to not want to bring up charges right away.

We all know Assange is a crazy, twisted bastard. How do we know that this is some "magical" conspiracy and not him thinking he is so on top of the world that he can get away with whatever he wants? For all we know, in his twisted head, he has some sort of Michael Alig thing going on where he will do and say whatever and think he is above everything. I could really see Assange thinking that way.

No, people do not like him, but did you ever think, for just one second, that some of the people are actually correct is that he is just super crazy and messed up in the head? Maybe he thinks since he started WikiLeaks, that he is on top of the world and can treat people however he wants. He surely has a written track record for acting that way. There is a book written about it. You say, "No, the book is false and was written by a rat to discredit him." Maybe Assange is just crazy. So crazy that you can write a good selling book about him and working for him. Maybe he truly thinks it is cool to have sex with a girl while she is sleeping. "Oh no, having sex with a girl while she is sleeping is perfectly fine as long as she wakes up later on"

Also, if they hung out with him later on, maybe they knew nobody else, or maybe they were scared of running away. A dude like Assange, that would be scary. You get an opportunity to get away from him, and get as far away as possible, to say, Israel.

Also, you are not a police officer. I promise you that if this situation happened in America, they would still go through the entire process Assange is going through even if proven innocent. They still have to go to court, and many times, will be waiting in a cell while they await trial (because if it is true, they would be allowing a rapist to roam the streets before his court date).

Also, race has nothing to do with it, and when you bring that into play, that means you are stretching to prove this conspiracy theory.

As for the leaks, maybe they have had them for awhile, and to help Assange, they saved them until he got in trouble with anything. Speeding ticket? Well, people are out to get him. He has rape charges in Sweden. So if he is innocent, he will go to trial. Even before the leaks, he is big enough to where if anything besides just this trial happens, everybody knows about it. There is no way for him to just up and be taken away and phase away. He is too big, and he knows it and is playing off of that.

"Oh, I don't believe he would have raped 2 girls" How sure are you? The dude is crazy. It is documented that he is out of his gourd. He just "happens" to have hacking charges? Uh, don't brush those off. If I had hacking charges, that would be a big deal for me. When you are in the line of work of showing people possibly classified documents, hacking charges are big. I know it is somebody else who brought them up, not you, but I am combining posts here.

Here are my predictions of what really happened:
Assange had sex with the girls. One one to sleep, he thought "time to get some sloppy seconds" and went for it. She woke up while he was doing this and NOT using a condom. He knew he messed up doing it, so he fled to Britain. When they tried coming at him with the charges, he starts going crazy again saying that it is all some conspiracy to get him executed in the US. He has WikiLeaks push out the leaks they were hold

Re:Yes, I would

[elrous0]

This isn't the ravings of some paranoid schizo screaming about aliens at Roswell. It's well known the Assange has a big target on his back. It's well-known that the CIA wants him stopped (that's their *job*, after all). It's well-known that discrediting/smearing is one of the most effective ways to silence a public figure (just ask the Church of Scientology, who regularly try to smear their opponents with charges of child molesting and mental problems). Add to that the fact that these "rapes" occurred just weeks after Assange released a huge trove of classified U.S. documents (and threatened to release more), and it doesn't take a conspiracy-theorist Fox Mulder type to smell something fishy going on.

Re:Yes, I would

[Dodgy G33za]

And here is the problem with your 'predictions of what really happened' He didn't flee Sweden. He was investigated AND CLEARED by the Swedish prosecutor the first time around (I think it took about 3 months). During this time he co-operated. After he got propelled to stardom with the latest round of leaks the case got revived by a new prosecutor. He tried repeatedly to contact her, but instead she puts out a international arrest warrant even though at the time he wasn't charged.

Re:Yes, I would

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Just curious, do you actually have some citation or evidence that shows Assange to be, "crazy" and, "twisted?" From everything I've read and seen, he certainly seems self-important to some extent, but to my knowledge there are no publicly circulated psych. evaluations that document him to be crazy and twisted. You used that adjective a lot in your argument as to why he could be guilty, but from everything I've seen, that's a false assumption. I don't think he's crazy, and I haven't seen any evidence yet to label him as such. It just seems to me like he thinks very highly of himself. So, what makes you say he's crazy?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I really would like to know what information you have access to that I've missed.

Re:Yes, I would

[mywhitewolf]

He just "happens" to have hacking charges? Uh, don't brush those off. If I had hacking charges, that would be a big deal for me.

you don't release "secret" documents without acquiring hacking charges along the way.

also only hacking charges indicate to me that he only hacked, he would have gotten charged with other crimes if he did anything with that information like blackmail, fraud etc.

sounds like he had a snoop when he discovered an insecure website. i've done it once (Google search gave a link to the admin page), i could have been charged with hacking too, and I'm not crazy.

I find it hard to believe the charges.
1) coincidence, you can't deny its suspicious.
2) If you've been raped, the last thing you really want to do is tell a room full of strangers about it, let alone the rest of the world. the shear amount of shame you feel (regardless of society look on it) makes you want to forget it and pretend it never happened. the elephant in the room looms when you talk to someone who knows what happened to you. its exceptionally uncomfortable.

although this doesn't apply to random sexual assaults, this really only applies if someone you've invested trust into takes advantage of you.

Obviously my anecdotal evidence isn't conclusive, but it certainly enough for me to question the validity of the claims.

Re:Yes, I would

[Stregano]

There is an entire book by a former employee of his that talks about him being crazy. When people even try to bring up this book, others immediately go into defense saying that the book is only out to discredit the dude. I have not completed the book yet, but from what I have read, yeah Assange is nuts. I mean, besides the book, come on sir, do a few google searches and it is easy to find. The dude is not right. Now, you are taking it very extreme like I am saying he immediately needs to be institutionalized, but that is not the case. I am crazy myself, and if you gave me a sense of power, I would probably be similar to Assange minus the rape. You see to be talking about "Hey is there evidence from a psychologist proving your statement?" Of course not. If I still crap my pants at the age of 30 and do nothing about it like it is normal, do you really need a full on psychic evaluation to see if I am not right in the head?

Re:Yes, I would

[Stregano]

New evidence brought to light? That would make sense.

My point of these posts is that people assume there is some huge conspiracy to kill him, but as long as he keeps riding that, he will have followers and no matter what he does, even if it is rape, will try to free him.

Question: If you had a group of followers where no matter what you did, they thought you were innocent? I have personally been paranoid from my past and thought the government was out to get me. Yes, I agree that is it no coincidence that the leaks about people coming out to get him when he got in trouble this second time, but who did what first? Did Assange put out the leaks about this first, or wait until he got arrested first? Also, when the leaks were written, what is the date on that compared to when Assange got busted? Is it way earlier? Was Assange holding onto the leaks in case he got into a pinch and needed a way out?

Re:Yes, I would

[Stregano]

Sorry about replying to my own, but I messed up on that question:

If you had a group of followers where no matter what you did, they thought you were innocent, wouldn't you act pretty damn extreme when anything happened to try and get out of it?

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Lazareth]

You completely ignore that the point was not whether he was wanted in Sweden or not and whether he should be extradited under those circumstances, but the fact that he is in danger of extradition by proxy to a country who very likely wants him either tortured, put on death row, or both for crimes that are not crimes yet in said country nor in the UK.

Yes, the benefits of the EU is that we are working together in many matters legal and otherwise, but do you sincerely want us to become another US where people are ferried to the relevant state where the laws are the strictest and capital punishment is still allowed? Even if the UK is in an union with Sweden, they should still uphold their own policies regarding extraditing people to death.

Yes, I know that the arguments are long and varied on how Assange simply will not be extradited to the US, but the fact is that there is a very real risk or this happening. All that is needed to block an extradition is plausible risk of capital punishment or torture. An union shouldn't invalidate that.

You got me... i read

[zipherx]

I read it first as to be exectured in sweeden... ugh. -jc

Re:He didn't rape them

[elrous0]

Assange knew or should have known that the intelligence agencies of this world would use female agents to entrap him.

Assange is a civilian, not a trained agent. You can't fault him for being naive. He probably isn't screening his newer employees/friends well enough or covering his windows either.

Re:He didn't rape them

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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.

Yeah I considered that as well

[SmallFurryCreature]

What has changed in the world? Food prices? Yes, but not for the first time. The only really knew thing is the cable leaks showing some embarrising info for the first time presented as fact. It is one thing for rumors that your leaders are fat pigs stuffing themselves and another to see it in black and white.

The only other option I can think off is that the Chinese have been very busy. And even that is doubtful. Nobody really benefits from the current revolutions except the locals and who cares about them.

US has a risk that they loose allies (although Turkey is a democracy and a solid ally).

China uses paria nations to counter US influence, if Libya becomes a democracy, bye bye paria status.

The west has been very friendly to Libya recently, happily selling weapons (a sales trip is going on right now, watch the British prime-minister) for killing the locals.

Nobody WANTED this, except the locals and again, who cares about them.

To the guy below and others who think the locals can SEE what is going on... NO... they cannot. What they see is carefully staged news events. Same as you don't see Obama stuffing himself with caviar but instead eating a McD burger. Come on, how likely is that to be real. Bill Clinton okay, but Obama? He never been in a McD in his live. Not that that makes him a bad person but it makes the outward appearance a lie.

A lot of us "know (read believe)" that some leaders are corrupt. But the leaks PROVED it. Spelled it out in plain language making it impossible to ignore, to gloss over with a speech.

North Africa is on fire. Libya is in a civil war, dicator after dictator is making concensions they never have given before ALL within a few weeks. Something has to be causing this and the only real change leading up to this has been the cable leaks.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[hoggoth]

I, for one, can't wait for all of the other people accused of not wearing a condom during consensual sex to be extradited to Sweden. I'm sure Julian Assange wasn't the only person in the entire country that did this in the last few years, right? Can someone please point me to a list of all of the people currently being extradited?

Why shouldn't he think that?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[tnk1]

Sarah Palin, Huckabee, some bloggers, and even some two-bit Congresscritters aren't going to get anyone executed for anything. Look at the record. The last time that the Federal Government executed someone for espionage was the Rosenbergs, in 1953. And the reason it happened was because everyone thought that they gave the Soviets the A-Bomb. Before that, it was not exactly common to execute anyone for treason or espionage related acts either. They might or might not have been wrong about the involvement of the Rosenbergs, but no one could argue that the charges were not incredibly serious. Wikileaks is embarrassing, but its not like handing over weapons of mass destruction to an enemy state.

Unless Assange does something a lot more serious the worst he's likely to get, if legally extradited, is ten years or something in Federal prison. The Obama Administration might not have been everything the libs hoped for, but they're not likely to support the death penalty for someone who resembles a journalist. And he'll have every anti-war and free speech interest group submitting briefs and holding protests the entire time. He's far more likely to be shot by some crazy on the way to the courthouse than executed.

I can accept that elements of the government might be murderous enough to have him killed, but it would have to happen covertly. And that is just as likely to happen in the UK as it is in Sweden. The only good legal reason for Assange to not be sent to Sweden is the fact that they hadn't actually charged him with anything, but that does not appear to have been sufficient grounds to refuse.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Wyatt Earp]

Those people are not the United States Attorney Generals Office, or the Department of Justice so what they want has nothing to do with any charges that might be filed by the United States against Assange.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

Sarah Palin, Huckabee, some bloggers, and even some two-bit Congresscritters aren't going to get anyone executed for anything.

Someone that's already run in a presidential campaign and shows every likelihood of trying for a nomination to be President of the US of A inherently has significant levels of influence.

Given the well publicised levels of corruption in the US, the gun-happy culture, the belief in killing people as a form of justice and the low level of intelligence exhibited by significant numbers of Americans I don't think it's unreasonable for Assange to be concerned for his life if illegally transferred to the US.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

Sure. You keep believing that.

For fucks sake your entire justice apparatus is politically elected. They're political beasts that will do whatever is expedient to achieve re-election.

That's not justice, and that does mean these people are very easily influenced.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[tmosley]

You're a trusting soul. As a reward for this trust, I'm going to give you the deal of a lifetime on a bridge. I'll even throw in some Arizona beachfront property.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Wyatt Earp]

The hell it is. The Federal Judges are not elected, they are appointed for life after a Senate vote on them.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

Fair point, although I was thinking more of the attorney general and prosecutors that would be the people demanding state murder.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Wyatt Earp]

The AG isn't elected either, another political appointee who is approved by the Senate. United States Attorneys (Prosecutors) are appointed, vetted and voted on by the Senate. Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) are civil servants, not elected, hired by the district they work in and answer to the USA for that district.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/prosecutor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

Thats similar to how the United States Marshals Service works.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[gknoy]

The last time that the Federal Government executed someone for espionage was the Rosenbergs, in 1953. And the reason it happened was because everyone thought that they gave the Soviets the A-Bomb. Before that, it was not exactly common to execute anyone for treason or espionage related acts either.

The key bit I think you're missing is that Congress is trying to classify Assage's actions as espionage. If they can successfully do that, they'll have the leverage they'd need to execute him, should he ever get extradited to the US.

edit: ... or, they would, if we didn't prohibit ex post facto laws. Somehow I totally forgot about that. However, the intent seems to be to find a way to destroy him, and I would be very surprised if an extradidtion to the US (if it happens) doesn't eventually result in his execution ... or in being locked up in a very small box forever, like Manning has been.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[GooberToo]

Someone that's already run in a presidential campaign

Only in her mind. Even in her own state, polls show she doesn't have a chance in hell. She has publicity but is more or less politically dead at the federal level; and likely at the state level after her governorship farce. The more publicity she has received the less political credibility she maintains.

And ignoring all that, presidents, by decree of law, can not execute or have someone assassinated for political gain. Wikileaks most certainly falls under current laws.

To say there is any reasonable chance of Assange ever being executed by the US right up there with you having an orgy with the world's hottest models in your lifetime. Not impossible but extremely improbable - such that its pragmatically impossible.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

hmm, the AG is a political appointment though. Aren't state AGs elected?

Maybe I've been misunderstanding it all these years. Quite likely really.

You elect local sheriffs, yeah? Does that count? ;)

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

Hmm. I _do_ have an interesting entry in my diary for Tuesday afternoon..

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Wyatt Earp]

Some state and territory AGs are elected, others are appointed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_attorney_general

Some Sheriffs are elected, some states (like mine, Alaska) don't have Sheriffs. We don't get to vote on any law enforcement officials up here.

We do elect state Judges here in Alaska, they are appointed then are on the ballots for rejection. I voted a throw the bums out platform this year. We actually rejected one - http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Aryden]

Palin has no chance. Every poll run shows that she is a virtual laughing stock to anyone that isn't a Palinite. She has her own reality show for pete's sake.

Corruption in the low/mid/high levels of Government, absolutely. But guess what, the phrase "Power corrupts" does not stop at the US borders. The mere fact that it is more highly publicized here just means that maybe it is hidden better elsewhere. If you believe members of the parliaments of other nations do not receive kick backs from private companies, you should probably pull your head out of the sand.

Gun happy culture... You say that as though every US citizen is issued a gun at 18 and wears them on the hip at all times. It just isn't true. The simple facts are that most Americans do not even own guns, yet by our laws, have the right to if they wish. Also, crime per capita in the US is actually lower than Dominica, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Chile and Monserrat cite.

Again you are falling prey to exactly the same media hype that the less intelligent citizens of the US fall prey to. You are shown all these negatives about society and assume that it's all true and dangerous when the VAST majority of Americans will live their entire lives and never be involved in a gun related crime.

Assange does have a right to be worried, he needs to be worried that he may actually have to stand trial and could possibly be convicted of sexual assault in Sweden. However, Sweden's case has yet to be made, and I get the feeling that there will be repercussions of prosecutorial misconduct when it is. To get him extradited to the US, the US will have to actually charge him with a crime and go through the same process that Sweden has had to go through with the UK to get him sent.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[cdrguru]

The attorney general of the US is appointed to that position by the President. He serves "at the pleasure of the President" who can fire him at any time for any reason. The attorney general is not really a political post, it is far closer to a patronage post.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[tnk1]

Ha. Trust? I don't trust anyone to do anything that is not in their own self-interest. I don't trust the government to not kill him, I merely don't see how it is in their best interests to do it publicly through the legal system. If he gets extradited to the US, and held legally, its in the interests of the US government to weigh their public image and diplomatic ties against whatever threat he represents. Ten years in the slammer is more than enough to make their point.

The whole execution thing is just hyperbole. Even in Texas they only execute people for being convicted of violent capital crimes like murder.

You would know if the US Government supports execution for him because you'd have Administration officials, not pundits or legislators, preparing the groundwork for it. They would be using strong language, they would be demanding things, they would be assuring their audience that a dangerous criminal was being pursued. In short, they'd act like they do when they talk about Osama bin Laden. As far as I have gauged the response of the Obama Administration, they've been making statements that sound like they are chastising a particularly irresponsible child, rather than a hardened, dangerous criminal. They don't even sound like they are particularly interested in capturing him.

Execution for espionage is an extremely extraordinary occurrence in the US, but for some reason, everyone seems to act as if it is obvious that its going to happen to someone who basically did the same thing that was already done with the Pentagon Papers 30 years ago. No one faced the death penalty then either, and Obama is certainly no Nixon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I don't see any *evidence*, extraordinary or otherwise, that Assange is under any particular threat of being treated differently than any other spy we've caught in the last 60 years. In fact, as far as I know, the US hasn't even started to try to indict him for anything. Hardly the attitude of a government that is chomping at the bit to execute him or even prosecute him at all.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[tnk1]

Small box forever... I could buy, even though I sincerely doubt it.

Execution? The chances of that happening are almost completely negligible. We didn't even execute Soviet spies after the 1950s, and I assure you the Soviets executed many of ours. It certainly would have been a lot less contentious to execute a Communist spy in the height of the Cold War than a media darling who is a citizen of an allied Western nation.

My bet, if they even bother to indict him and manage to capture him is ten years, out in five.

That is, unless he does manage to get US servicemen killed in the meantime. Then the situation could become very serious for him.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Local ID10T]

I'm going to give you the deal of a lifetime on a bridge. I'll even throw in some Arizona beachfront property.

The London Bridge? In Lake Havasu, Arizona? I actually have a picture of me, on a beach, in front of the London Bridge, in Arizona...

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Darinbob]

Even the president does not have the power to order someone executed.

These people are making sound bites to increase their popularity or provide entertainment.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Cederic]

Fuck me when did Slashdot readers get so naive?

Influence != Order

I used the word Influence.

Go learn some politics, it'll stand you in good stead in the workplace. Hmm, and in college. Actually, thinking about it, in Kindergarden.

Pick up some reading comprehension skills while you're there.

I'm happy to hear valid critique of my comments but at least respond to the point I'm making instead of making irrelevant statements.

These people are making sound bites to increase their popularity or provide entertainment.

Yeah, me too. Notice however how everyone else has already noted how naive, juvenile and stupid you are.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Dan541]

The US will just lock him up for the rest of his life without charge.

Re:Why shouldn't he think that?

[Darinbob]

So these people have influence. It doesn't matter much because that influence can't easily get someone executed. The US still has rule of law, and Assange is not going to get executed here just because of some loud mouths. Yes, there's always a possibility, the same with every country on earth, but it is extremely remote.

Remember, we stuck Noriega in prison and he was far more hated than Assange ever will be, and we had people of influence who wanted him executed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is still in detention and awaiting further trial, and he's a far bigger headache than Assange ever will be with far greater reasons to use an extra-judicial execution.

Well

[Vinegar Joe]

I hope Julian likes surströmming.

and the play has been written.

[nimbius]

in such a manner the likes of which the cold war itself would smirk.

America: we have assange now! it wont be long until hes in guantanamo bay!
World: This will be the sixth time we have had an Assange, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
America: but he's the leader of wikileaks!
World: There is no leader. there never was.

Whoa

[ShooterNeo]

Wait, if you can't be extradited for a capital case....

Does that mean you could murder a dozen people, get on a plane to the EU before they catch you, and be safe from extradition? That can't be right.

Re:Whoa

[olliM]

Yes, or more likely the European country that arrests you would demand that the death penalty is off the table as a condition for your extradition.

Re:Whoa

[Vinegar Joe]

Ever hear of Hans Peterson?

http://drdavidcornbleet.blogspot.com/

Re:Lesson to swedes : never elect right wingers.

[cocoajunkie]

This is a worthy lesson for _everybody_, not just swedes. And I am talking about Italy, when I mention the dangers of electing _brain damaged_ right wingers. Brain damaged right wingers are hard to get off one's back because they are supported by the US administration, who cares only about support to their military aggression wars and do their very best to keep them in place, at all costs. Berlusconi is a case in point. Before Wikileaks we had suspicions, now we have certainties about how this supposedly "democratic process" and autonomous decisions are influenced by the US.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[ebuck]

You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

You do realize that foreign nationals are subject to the laws of the country they currently occupy. Being in another country doesn't mean that they get to totally disregard any law that doesn't exist in their homeland.

Actually Assange hasn't committed any crime in Sweden, yet. That's what the trial is about. I know this man is important to society, but either he goes back to Sweden, or we all hold Assange above the law. There are many reasons why I don't want him in Sweden, but none of them are legal reasons. If you are charged with a crime, even a bogus crime, you must be present for that charge to be tried in a court; otherwise, the court would start without you (a much worse solution). Other countries understand this (and it's importance), and if their laws and treaties are written in such a manner that deporting him is the correct legal outcome; he's off to Sweden.

Assange is like the opening scene in "My Cousin Vinny."

Judge Chamberlain Haller: How do your clients plead?
Vinny Gambini: My clients were caught completely by surprise. They thought they were getting arrested for shoplifting a can of tuna.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Huh? What are you telling me? That they plead not guilty?
Vinny Gambini: No. I'm just trying to explain...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: [cutting him off] I don't want to hear explanations. I don't know how you practice law in New York, but the state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini?
[Motions for him to approach the bench]
Judge Chamberlain Haller: All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty.
Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.

Re:not exactly..

[circletimessquare]

do you really think its working?

i think they just proved in the middle east that fear doesn't actually work out as a motivator

indeed.

[unity100]

berlusconi, is hilarious. it is appalling how someone like that can stay in power. election fraud comes to mind.

Re:indeed.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

berlusconi, is hilarious. it is appalling how someone like that can stay in power. election fraud comes to mind.
Nope, far simpler explanation, brain-dead leftwingers are even worse.

Re:indeed.

[unity100]

yes isnt it. its because they are easily fooled by religious jargon, or anti-immigrant fervor, or gun rhetoric. and dump votes to people who do the EXACT opposite of what they say, multiple times.

moron.

Child sex pervert smear.

[iiiears]

Daniel Ellsberg, the one who released the Pentagon papers, had had sex with his wife in front of his children.

I hope he gets extradited

[ath1901]

Personally, I hope he gets extradited to Sweden. Not because I think he's a bad guy or guilty of any crime but because it is the only way to see if the world is as bat-shit-crazy as he claims.

If he is extradited to Sweden and held until America makes up a good enough excuse to get him extradited to America, then I have to buy a bunker and stockpile cans of soup. I hope he's wrong but the only way to find out is to get him extradited.

In the best case, he's sent to Sweden, the prosecutor/court find the case to be way too weak/silly to proceed and he's set free. Then we can all go back to trusting the (Swedish) authorities and hope for a better future.

If not, then the world is much more scary than I thought and the chances of a war/rebellion/other are greater than I could ever imagine. Hence the bunker and soup.

Sacrificing Assange is a small price to pay to find out if the conspiracy theories are true.

Extradite him

[HBSorensen]

I must admit that I ( in the beginning of Wikileaks ) was chearing for Wikileaks. The idea of a place for whistleblowers to blow the whistle on companies doing bad things ( like BP etc. ) was nice.

Then, documents regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan started turning up. Being a former military contractor I saw security issues in those. I supported blowing the whistle on masacres etc. but not on things putting military personnel at risk.

THEN, the cables came. There's no point in telling what goes on behind closed doors - e.g. diplomats saying that Sarcozy is a twat ( he is ). EXCEPT, if your agenda is to destabilize the world and destroy international diplomacy. Maybe even a New World Order lead by Assange himself? Don't believe that guy ever had any noble intentions.

IF the guy has indeed raped 2 women he should be procecuted.If not he should be cleared in a court of law. So, extradite him to Sweden and let him stand trial.

In my point of view, the guy is not a Messiah but an anarchist / a terrorist wearing a suit and hiding behind a computer. He needs to stand trial to face the crimes he MIGHT have committed. If he's innocent he has nothing to fear. Or is it a conspiracy against him?

Re:Extradite him

[0111 1110]

I must admit that I ( in the beginning of Wikileaks ) was chearing for Wikileaks. The idea of a place for whistleblowers to blow the whistle on companies doing bad things ( like BP etc. ) was nice.

So whistle blowers against private corporations = good, but against governments = bad? You don't really sound like the kind of guy to support whistle blowers of any kind. Especially when there are "security issues".

Re:From Zero to Zero

[blue trane]

Words != actions
Therefore, trolling != murder or paedophilia or theft.

---

murder = involuntarily depriving someone of life
cows = someone
Therefore, meat = murder.

Watch Out

[b4upoo]

A whole bunch of people will be very,very upset if anything including jail happens to Julian. The first problem is that he has committed no crime at all. The sexual nonsense and extradition are offensive. He is being extradited only to be questioned with no charges having been filed against him. That strikes me as wrong. The Swiss should either charge him or realize the he is not compelled to answer questions at all. If they intend to actually arrest him simply in order to question him that sounds like a human rights violation. As far as publishing he has done a great job of it and has broken no laws at all. Creating new twists or new laws can not be applied to supposed past crimes. The US needs to rethink. They may create an considerable number of Julians out there as he is now a hero and respected all over the world. He is a Nobel nominee as well as an Australian Medal of Freedom recipient. He is more trustworthy than the government of the US in many peoples' opinion.

Stop focusing on the soap opera

[Fractal Dice]

Every time I see one of these stories, I make a point of going to the wikileaks site and reading a few of the cables instead. It seems we have reached a point where the soap opera is still front page news and a subject of frothing debate, but the information in the leaks themselves is no longer being reported or discussed. I'm divided over whether this implies that the character assassination has won or whether the scandal has now become the only way of keeping the story alive in a media that has otherwise shrugged and lost interest.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Martin S.]

You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

Irrelevant in the EU, the ECHR protects Human Rights not citizen's rights. As the judge said he has just much legal protection in Sweden as he does in the UK.

What's that got to do with anything?

[Sycraft-fu]

You are subject to the laws of any country you enter. That can include laws that are very different form your home nation. Now if you are accused of a crime in that country, you can't just run away, particular in the EU. They have strong extradition treaties. That means that you will be handed back over to the country accusing you to stand trial.

That is all that is happening in Britain. This is NOT a trial for innocence or guilt. Sweden said "We want this guy back, here's a warrant," and Britain is just making sure it is all legal.

Re:He didn't rape them

[interkin3tic]

Basically, Assange's lawyers have made up a lot of shit about this case, and people like you are eating it up.

I find it odd that you assume Assange's lawyers are making things up. Between wikileaks and government, the government has a longer track record of lying to get what they want.

Re:He didn't rape them

[paazin]

I find it odd that you assume Assange's lawyers are making things up. Between wikileaks and government, the government has a longer track record of lying to get what they want.

That's only because wikileaks has only been around for a few years.

They've already been caught doing "selective editing" with that bombing video posted some months back.

Lousy Defense

[tobiah]

It's true, Assange's defense made me cringe. Something went very wrong in that defense; either his lawyers were poorly chosen and incompetent, they were infected by his paranoia and unnerved by the media attention, or they had other reasons to mismanage his defense.

Re:He didn't rape them

[gknoy]

How is editing a bad thing when you also release the whole footage? What was "selective" about it? How did it change the message?

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[The Moof]

What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

That's not how it works, though. Unless you're one of the lucky few who have diplomatic immunity, you must abide by the laws of whatever country you're currently in.

computer expert?

[DarthVain]

He is? I was unaware... Does he report or at least release information about computers? What is his actual "expertise"?

I was pretty sure he was just a journalist that has a website and a media whore. I guess having a website makes him a "computer expert".

Enough with the uninformed advocacy already

[Magic5Ball]

RTFR, or at least pages 23 to the end.

The ruling makes no mention of any statements or events in the US; only political statements on the part of .se officials that do not amount to anything barring extradition. JA's own expert witness testified that extradition to the US or execution by the US "wouldn't happen". The judge also points out that the same Article 6 provisions on which the defense rely to not extradite to .se would also apply should anyone else ask for JA.

On investigation versus charges, the judge details how, under common-sense and legal interpretations of UK law, the four alleged offenses in the extradition order that .se is investigation would also be violations of UK law if they were to be proven in court. The judge points out that the .se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that .se's procedures require investigation before prosecution. The defense's complaint that prosecutors did not hand over all evidence _FROM AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION_ is conflicted (or self-defeating) because the defense uncommonly gets access to substantial evidence before charges are laid under common law systems (the standards they want imposed).

Shoddy defense effort all around.

Re:Enough with the uninformed advocacy already

[Will.Woodhull]

It looks to me like the judge's refusal to address critical points in Assange's arguments guarantees an appeal. The judge appears to have taken care to do the minimum needed to assure that appeal would be accepted by the higher court and not remanded back down to his level because of some inadequacy in following procedure.

The judge has put forward the interpretation that the alledged offenses under Swedish law would also be offenses under British law, but on the face of it, that interpretation is not based on any precedent. It is one judge's opinion, and does not have the full weight of the law behind it.

The rest of parent post is very confusing. My understanding of what constitutes "common law" is what was originally established by William the Conqueror to handle situations that his written laws did not cover, and has been inherited by English based systems of law since that time. If I am right about this, then Sweden is not a common law country. So I do not see how references to common law apply here.

Re:Enough with the uninformed advocacy already

[mdmkolbe]

The judge points out that the .se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that .se's procedures require investigation before prosecution.

But investigation doesn't require Assanage. Let .se finish their investigation. Once they're done with that *then* we can talk extraditing Assanage.

This is setting a precedent of allowing extradition for the sake of investigation rather than prosecution which is significant since the UK has a common law system where precedent matters. This precedent will be used.

Re:Enough with the uninformed advocacy already

[Magic5Ball]

Defense makes at least two conflicting claims on the point of access to evidence. They claim that they are entitled to access evidence during an investigation in which there has been no charge laid, which access they claim to have been denied. In a common law jurisdiction, defense has no such entitlement unless there is substantial intent to prosecute, which conflicts with their claim that .se has no intent to prosecute. In a non-common-law jurisdiction, perhaps like .se, they have no standing on which to complain about not having access to evidence during an investigation, in which case the argument is irrelevant to defense's due process argument. Defense's claims internally contradict with either line of argument.

Unless you're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, in which case, IHBT.

Re:He didn't rape them

[paazin]

They didn't. At first it was a truncated version. Only some time after was the full video released, after complaints as to how there were sections missing.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Altus]

Spreading BS doesnt help your case either.

He left the country after charges were dropped. He even asked for permission. It wasn't until he left the country that all this crap started up again.

Re:while she was sleeping....

[Altus]

Apparently, from what I have been able to gather, she was asleep, she woke up asked if he had a condom on. He indicated that he did not and, despite this, they continued sex to completion.

IF that constitutes consent or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yes, he is a computer expert?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

He is? I was unaware.

You must be blind. This is well known stuff.

He wrote the first open source port scanner in 1995, and was contributing to PostgreSQL in 1996, and writing a plausible deniablility encryption system soon after.

He is far more of a computer expert than you will ever be.

Re:I hope he get a fair trial

[aliquis]

I don't know if that was sarcasm or not.

I think it's totally ok he get tried in the case.

But obviously only for that, not "removed" because he's inconvenient or something such. But hopefully I can trust my government. As said.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[illtud]

You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

The nationality of the individual isn't a consideration in this case. He was served with the warrant whilst in the UK, the UK must follow the procedure.

What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

It's whether he's wanted on charges of a crime in the issuing country that counts in European Arrest Warrants.

See:

  http://www.andrewbronsmep.eu/?q=content/answer-andrews-question-european-arrest-warrant

(not my first choice for a source, but I'm google-lazy and it does quote a primary source)

Re:He didn't rape them

[Thing 1]

LOL come after me, bitches. It won't work. (No, not into dudes either.)

Jurisdiction

[mjwx]

You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.

What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.

Regardless, what he acknowledged did was done in Sweden. That means the Swedes have jurisdiction.

Why cant a Saudi citizen living in Australia arrest a girl for not wearing a Hajab? Because he's in Australia and he's under our law.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Seumas]

If people in my country (or the country I was in at the time) - especially those with big very tall soapboxes and bullhorns - were saying that I should be executed and they clearly organized some bullshit allegations against me to help facilitate their ultimate goal through damaging my reputation (remember, these women had already dealt with these allegations and, if I recall, were actually pushed against their wishes to make these claims by prosecutors and police), then I would run like fuck, too.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Seumas]

Nobody has done anything with it, because Americans are too busy saying "execute him for treason durr durr durr!" and the media is too busy talking themselves out of their own jobs, by crucifying anyone involved in providing government information. You know, something that is very imperative to their entire journalistic existence.

It's impressive how quickly Assange became the scape-goat (though Manning is certainly not getting away with anything, either) while every organization that associated with him -- hell, even picked through the data and advised him what to release, what to redact, what to keep aside, etc and then published much of that information right alongside working with him . . . are given a free pass (which, of course, they should since they're journalists). But the point is, if he's culpable, then so are they. And they cant' be culpable, because all they did was exercise their right to behave as a free and unrestricted press.

Whether he's kind of an ass in real life or not (we don't really know), they accomplished what they wanted, regardless. They found a couple of women who had no interest in actually pursuing any attack against him (and had even disclaimed some of the rumors) and used them to absolutely obliterate his reputation with a smear campaign (gee, where have we seen that before). That forced him to spend all of his time dealing with these issues and having to cover his own ass, which in turn only makes people see him as more selfish and self-involved (for merely doing what any of us would do if we were under the spotlight with a massive boulder hurling down on us).

Anyway, Americans frankly don't give a fuck about anything. Rememeber the first leak that contained a video of a pretty heinous war atrocity committed by our troops? Where was the focus during that whole time? On "oh no, leaks!" rather than "whoa, what the fuck?! these guys need to pay for their crimes". Of course, the rest of the American crowd was also too busy responding to the video with "serves them brown fuckers right - oughta blow 'em all back into the stone age and turn the middle east into a parking lot durr durr durr".

Seriously. Give me ONE thing that you think would ever make even 25% of the population get off their asses and take to the streets over ANYTHING.

Re:He didn't rape them

[Grumbleduke]

Assange has been charged with rape, and the allegations include the use of force to overcome resistance

If I recall correctly, he hasn't been *charged* with anything - he is wanted for questioning.

Reading between the lines (and yes, I confess I only have the biased pro-Assange side that has been circulating in the UK, not the biased anti-assange circulating in Sweden and the US) it seems that if the Swedish prosecutors actually charged him, they would have to hand over all the evidence (so he could start work on his defence). If they did this while he was in the UK, he'd bring up the (his defence team claim) complete lack of evidence (and even evidence to support his side of the story) and it is quite possible the extradition hearing would collapse on lack of evidence.

However, once he is in Sweden, they can hold him, pending trial, in solitary confinement. Then the US applies for extradition, Sweden delays the trial until that is heard and the first thing Assange (or we) know is when he's on a plane to the US (Sweden seems to have a lot more relaxed extradition treaty with the US that the UK). It is my understanding that a large part of the defence argument was that proper procedure had not been followed (hence the first EAW being ignored and a second needed). I'm all for people being put on trial for alleged crimes, but there's a reason we have due process and procedures, and why they should be followed.

Guilty of thought-crime. Citizen

[waynemcdougall]

By promising to refrain from *voicing* dissent, you are admitting to having the capacity, concept, or possession of dissentful thoughts.

Thought-crime is double-plus ungood

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[Seumas]

I find it amusing that it's considered a crime, anywhere. There are women who will break a condom (or retrieve a used one) to trap a man into impregnating her, while he believes he's using protection. I've come across more than one woman in real life who has admitted this or has herself known women who did that. And you know what happens? The man is saddled with a life of obligation and grief, while the woman is . . . well, nothing happens to her.

Re:I would just like to take this opportunity to s

[hr raattgift]

The most shocking part of the ruling is:

A person’s extradition to a Category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it
appears that:
(a) the Part 1 warrant issued in respect of him (though purporting to be issued on account of the
extradition offence) is in fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on
account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his
personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political
opinions.
This has been hinted at, but no evidence has been provided and the bar is neither argued nor found.

That Counsel for Mr Assange did not offer an argument or evidence in support of point (b) above is astonishing.
Unfortunately under the relevant rules of procedure, and given the broader workings of the adversarial system,
it seems that Assange's attorneys failed to engage directly with this part of the statute while Mr Assange himself
was saying in public that the prosecution was nakedly political and the punishment would be strongly influenced
to his detriment because of his politics.

The Administrative Court on appeal is entitled to consider an argument on that point even if it was not made in the District Court.
It may not be a terrible disadvantage if a weak argument on that point had been advanced and failed in front of the Chief Magistrate,
as his reasoning on the other arguments which failed in front of him is clear and compelling.

Finally, it is disappointing that the argument focused on technical deficiencies in the procedure that, if the Chief Magistrate had taken
a line opposite the "cosmopolitan" reading of the wording in the statute and Framework Decision, could be remedied simply by having
Ms Ny, or a colleague, immediately reissue a new EAW that would not have these deficiencies. I would think that a judge could
reasonably conclude (perhaps considering arguments from the parties) that requiring that remedy conflicts with
Crim P.R. Rule 1 (the Overriding Objective) and deliberately disregard "picayune" defects in an obviously purposeful and apparently lawfully made
EAW especially when the obvious remedy would quickly place Mr Assange in an effectively identical situation. In particular, I do not think
that autrefois acquit would or SHOULD apply in England or in Sweden if the present EAW were overturned because it identified Ms Ny as "the"
Director rather than "a" Director, or chose a negligibly broader Swedish term of art than the most exactingly precise equivalent to "prosecution".
I also do not believe Sweden would hesitate to reissue a corrected EAW. Consequently, it would be a poor use of resources to require the formality,
along the lines of trying to convince the Administrative Court to find for the appellant because of a macro expansion failure ("M a") or a typo ("Mr Hurtig in an unreliable witness").

I find myself wondering whether Mr Assange will continue using Mr Hurtig as his Swedish attorney (see the paragraphs starting with "10." and "15." in the ruling).