Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange To Be Extradited To Sweden
An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost his challenge against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault. The 39-year-old Australian computer expert, who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website, is wanted in relation to claims made by two WikiLeaks volunteers last August."
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.
Disagree != mod troll.
He's not lost yet, he will be appealing against extradition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
"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.
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my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises.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.
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.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
...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.
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.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Won't matter. This whole play was written before he even met those women in Sweden.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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."
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
.
Because the case is still in the investigation phase. According to TFA:
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.
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?
Palm trees and 8
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I was under the impression that Sweden gave him permission to leave the country. How could he skip town if they let him leave?
:(){
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
The definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more liberal than in the UK (or US, for that matter). I think the charge is something along the lines of "having sex without a barrier protection method on the assumption that the parties involved do not sleep around and then subsequently finding out that at least one does sleep around, thus increasing the risk of STDs to the injured party".
Oddly, I wasn't aware that you could be extradited from the UK to face a charge for something that isn't illegal in the UK - I think they're trying (and succeeding, so far) to peg it onto a "sexual assault" charge
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
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.
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more liberal than in the UK (or US, for that matter). I think the charge is something along the lines of "having sex without a barrier protection method on the assumption that the parties involved do not sleep around and then subsequently finding out that at least one does sleep around, thus increasing the risk of STDs to the injured party".
It's not, and it's not. Assange has been charged with rape, and the allegations include the use of force to overcome resistance.
Basically, Assange's lawyers have made up a lot of shit about this case, and people like you are eating it up.
Oddly, I wasn't aware that you could be extradited from the UK to face a charge for something that isn't illegal in the UK - I think they're trying (and succeeding, so far) to peg it onto a "sexual assault" charge
Again, your whole premise here is false.
Are you adequate?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/meet-the-people-who-want-julian-assange-whacked.ars
http://news.change.org/stories/brits-arrest-assange-us-politicians-seek-to-hang-him
http://www.tomchambless.com/2010/12/01/fox-analyst-mike-huckabee-wants-to-execute-julian-assange-but-let-murderers-go-free/
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/julian-assange-pentagon-072910
And I would think that if his lawyers were lying, people would be plastering such evidence all over the Internet.
:(){
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."
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.
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?
Never buy Sony CDs - they will open up your computer to anyone..
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.
Read radical news here
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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.