Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
judgecorp writes "Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has lost his appeal in the British High Court against extradition to Sweden on charges of rape. His team has 14 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — but would have to show a 'wider issue of public importance' to justify such an appeal. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has suspended publication because it says a 'banking blockade' has cut off its sources of funding."
Is another person's dirty tricks rape accusation. A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-warrant-sweden
So you don't care someone is being railroaded on bogus accusations?
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks. I think a lot of people support the idea of wikileaks, but his involvement and his serving as the public face of the group has been a huge problem for the organization. If wikileaks survives (which seems unlikely right now) it will be despite him, not because of him.
Julian, for the good of the cause you've championed, please step down from wikileaks.
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You can be extradited for a suspected crime - always have been able to. It's hard to only extradite convicted criminals without convicting them beforehand and in their absence, which is hardly fair.
Nope, that was the encrypted file which had its key leaked in a book recently. Now the US has nothing to lose by going up against him, especially since that incompetent or malicious idiot DDB deleted all the other leaks that had been placed on the Wikileaks server, likely including the BoA leaks.
And I'd say there's a good chance he'll be renditioned to Guantanamo or somewhere if he walks away from the court battle in Sweden. Jeppesen Dataplan, one of the shell airlines that runs the torture taxis, has an office there after all...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Used to be. UK does have a supreme court now.
If he'd pulled this trick during the cold war, he would have had a mysterious "car accident" in the country late at night with lots of empty bottles and a young male prostitute in the car with him. That .45 caliber wound to his head would have obviously been from the steering wheel, of course.
Now they just set him up on a phony charge for not requesting sexual relations via the Swedish government-approved triplicate form. What's next, claiming he killed someone with secondhand smoke, or arresting him for going over his personal carbon cap?
Julian Assange has offered to be questioned over video or phone conference, which Sweden refused. That strongly suggests that Sweden wants him in physical custody more than it wants questions answered.
I am officially gone from
He wasn't trying to escape justice. He hasn't even been charged yet, he's argued all along that the Swedish prosecution could question him in the UK and then if there's a case for him to be charged they could go ahead and do that and try and extradite him based on the charges.
What he's trying to avoid is being extradited to Sweden without charge, and then being passed on to America. Particularly when in Sweden the case has already become too politicised because even their PM has basically pre-judged him in TV interviews.
Your assumption is simply that he'll get a fair trial in Sweden, but as with the TPB trial which was overseen and the outcome determined by a judge who was a member of a content industry political lobbying organisation, who was good friends with the content industry lawyers in the prosecution and was pushed forward at the behest of American pressure as demonstrated by leaked cables we know that Sweden isn't capable of ensuring that this will be the case.
This isn't a job well done by any measure but I'm not suprised, we in the UK are as much a puppet state of the US as Sweden is. When we can't even protect our own people like Gary McKinnon from extradition to the US even now, with a coalition government in which both leaders previously stated they were against his extradition though it's far from certain he wont be extradited still then frankly, Assange, a foreign citizen, had no hope- that much has been clear all along.
If Sweden just questioned him here in person, or via video link, and then charged him I'd be far more supportive of this, but extradition for a case with massive politicisation in the country trying to extradite when they haven't yet even been willing to produce solid enough evidence to charge him hence based entirely on an accusation? Fuck no, that's not justice.
Would you like to be extradited to a country like China because of nothing more than some random person there claiming you raped them when you went there on holiday despite a complete lack of evidence and no charge being put forward by Chinese authorities? Sure the US isn't China, well, for most people, but for someone like Assange whom the US makes exceptions to it's supposed love of liberty, justice, and free speech, it really is that draconian a situation.
DSK now has nothing? You're kidding right?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The "crime" that he is accused of is almost never prosecuted in Sweden. This may be the first time in the history of the Swedish judicial system that anyone has been extradited for this class of offense. One of the accusers has left the country and is not available for either the prosecution or defense.
There is little chance of justice in this circumstance. He is being railroaded. The international banking system has shut down WikiLeaks. How is he going to be fairly defended? By some junior public defender? If you believe that you must also still believe in the tooth fairy.
The US is pulling every string they can to destroy Assange and WikiLeaks. I think they are planning to extradite him to the US or, if they think that they can get away with it, Guantanamo. Even if he ends up on US soil, they will give him the same treatment they gave Manning, which is real torture. Sleep deprivation, using the pretense of a suicide watch to keep the subject unclothed and with no bedding, multiple day interrogation by rotating teams of unaccountable "contractors", no real access to legal assistance. You don't have to inflict direct pain to effectively torture someone.
Just watch for Sweden to get some sort of sweet economic deal from the US as a reward of they get Assange. A new military base, some sort of co-development in the artic, joint mineral development. whatever. That's how the CIA got secret prisons in Poland. The Polish government got the promise of the anti-missile bases, which would have put a big long term chunk of US dollars into their economy. It's called bribery, and it works (at least in the sort run).
I almost can't believe that you expect "justice" in this relentless pursuit of Assange and WikiLeaks. Are you really that stupid? You really should spend more time over here in the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy you seem to be inhabiting.
Why is Snark Required?
It looks like things are proceeding exactly as planned...
giggity
They were dismissed as such by the first prosecution authority in Sweden. That it is not a warrent for arrest, just for "questioning", also calls in to question the accusations, or at least the evidence for them. Lastly calling removal of consent after the fact "rape" is insulting to anyone who has undergone the real horrible crime, and should properly terrify anyone who doesn't get on with an ex partner.
The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence. It was only after the details of the case hit the media and the case reappealed that they decided it was worth pursuing. For better or for worse, it is in fact Assange's identity as the founder of Wikileaks that is on trial
And you know this how?
I've met rape victims, that's how.
It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Calling him a rapist is an insult to all rape victims everywhere and doesn't make you look too bright.
No sig today...
Put Mexican drug cartel info on wikileaks.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The messenger in this case has did a better job harming himself by his own actions and behavior than any 3rd party could possibly do.
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.
Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress. Do you know that one of the two original accusers has already tried to back out?
In other news, I would like you to consider the following question: What do you suppose would happen to the world if, tomorrow, we invented a foolproof way to stop all whistleblowing?
Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges.
Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
When you find "Justice" let us know. We'd like to know where the fuck he's been hiding for the past 30 years.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They let him leave Sweden because he agreed to come back for questioning. He later decided to skip his appointment and refuse to return to Sweden (a fact which he admits).
Wow the paranoia is just rampant.
1. Why not just extradite him from the UK?
2. So the US controls the governments of the UK and Sweden but we couldn't convince them not to send the Lockerbie bomber back the Libya?
3. I where donations to Wikileaks going towards his defense in a case about his personal misconduct?
4. I have got to love how everyone is convinced these are trumpeted up charges. If it was someone on the right people would be sure he was guilty. If he was using money donated to a site they would be crying embezzlement.
Of course Sweden is such a closed minded conservative society their isn't a chance he could get a fair trial.......
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges. Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.
You are right - something is strange about this whole situation.
Currently, despite what is being reported there are NO rape charges. The claim on the warrant is that he is wanted for questioning, not arrest. This is because the Swedish police do not have enough evidence for an arrest based on the rape allegations.
So he goes to Sweden, takes a good lawyer, the police ask their questions, and as far as I can tell, as long as the lawyer is competent, there are 3 possibilities. Julian
1) exercises his right to remain silent - in which case the police have no new information, and have to let him go
2) answers their questions in such a way that he doesn't incriminate himself - in which case the police have no new information, and have to let him go, or
3) answers their questions in such a way that he doesn't incriminate himself, however the police decide he is lying, and arrest him.
So if the police were going to ignore any evidence he gives and arrest him, why didn't they submit an actual arrest warrant, rather than this very strange request for questioning?
If the police are going to believe what he says, why bring him in for questioning at all?
I don't like venturing into tin-foil hat territory where the only explanation is that prominent public figures can just be disappeared at will, but the current actions of the Swedish prosecutors are just weird when regular logic is applied.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
It IS NOT apparent that someone is trying to frame him. The Swedish legislation is a bit different in this area and may cast a wider net in terms of definition of the crime than many other states do. However, IT IS STILL THE LAW, and Assange is not above it in any way.
He should be handed over based on the EAW. But, it may be said that it is absolutely ridiculous to issue an arrest warrant for having him show up for interrogation, which seems to be the case. Cheaper and more suitable would be a video link based interrogation which is by the way very common these days.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment
Of course you can be held indefinitely in a US prison, as long as you define the prison as a "detention camp".
And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS.
The Guantanamo prison is not bullshit, it is a real US prison that does not obey any US laws.
If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him.
No they know that kidnapping him in a friendly country like UK and Sweden would be frowned upon, so they just wait until they can get him by "legal means". It is amazing to see that you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with the idea of US kidnapping foreign people without any warrants. Do you really have no issues with your government ignoring human rights and the law?
In Sweden, essentially a rape-victim is not as stigmatized as in many other places. This means that a lot of people will talk about it openly. Your assumption would possible have held valid in Sweden 20 years ago, but the social climate changes.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
It is almost certain that anyone who exposes the political establishment's corruption is bound to be railroaded by bogus accusations. They WILL find a way to get you.
You don't get it. He will got off on the charge from sweden but then the US will blow up his plane when he tries to fly home. The US would never blow up a UK airliners because of the risk that US citizens could be killed.
Since no one from the US ever goes to Sweden it is a much less likely to be any US citizens on a Swedish plane when the US blows it up!
Besides the Godless, oversexed, bimbo blondes that populate Sweden are terrible pilots and mechanics so it would look like an accident.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I've met rape victims, that's how. It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Your experience is insufficiently broad, and suffers from a terrible selection bias. How much experience do you have, for example, with women who are raped by their own husbands and don't report it? How many women do you estimate will admit to you that they had unwanted sex with a man who used alcohol and a little bit of physical force to overcome her resistance?
Are you adequate?
Can we stop pretending that his legal charges have anything to do with rape? It was evident from the getgo that the whole situation in Sweden was a farce and a naked attempt to smear his good name sufficiently that he could be whisked to the U.S. and waterboarded. Let's also stop pretending that his Swiss bank account was closed due to addressing issues or that Paypal, Visa and Mastercard all refuse to process donations for him because... well, they never really did supply reasons for their behavior, did they?
Yeah, but you'll never know this in the US, where apparently Obama is pulling out of Iraq. Both the left and the right seem to think this is true (For better or for worse), and it's rather astonishing the level of ignorance the media is promoting on this issue.
Guys, we got kicked out of Iraq at the end of 2011 in 2008.(1) Under Bush. Neither he nor Obama 'decided' to leave. The deadline has been Dec 31, 2011 for years. This is not some debatable fact. Yes, Obama campaigned on getting us out, but, um, he didn't voluntarily do that.
I've had like a dozen people present their opinion to be, about how Obama 'ending the war' is right, or wrong, or how Bush deserves credit, or whatever. And each time I just want to shake them and say 'Are you a total idiot? Iraq ended the war.'.
Iraq probably did this almost certainly because they got tired of our bullshit routine of killing civilians and then lying about it, but that is a debatable opinion. But it is indisputable that they did end it, not us. They held a vote, told us to leave by 2011, we asked them to reconsider, they did not.
1) Yes, I'm aware that, technically, troops can stay, and it's only immunity that's being revoked...but without immunity, no one can actually 'fight a war' in any sense, because they can't legally kill people, or detain people, or anything, without getting hauled into Iraqi court. So Obama has four choices for the troops: a) bring them home, b) pay them to stand around doing nothing, c) have them continue what they're doing, then get locked in Iraqi prisons, d) have them continue what they're doing, then fight off the police and military sent to arrest them, aka, declare war on Iraq.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Why so complicated? Isn't there an extradition treaty between the us and the uk as well?
Because he's a Commonwealth citizen (He's Australian.) and the UK has a pretty strong resistance against turning Commonwealth citizens over for political reasons, even to the US.
Whereas he's not a Swedish citizen, and Sweden could care less about him.
Hence this rather convoluted path of getting him to Sweden on a rather thin sex crime, and then, regardless of how that plays out, turning him over to the US.
And considering the US has kidnapped people without government permission (Just ask Germany), there's a concern that even if Sweden agrees to 'release' him onto their street, he will then mysteriously vanish five minutes later. No one needs to agree any 'formal' extradition, all it requires is the Swedes don't investigate that kidnapping too closely.
Sweden could easily fix all this by simply guaranteeing that Assange will be returned to the UK regardless. I.e, if they decide not to try him, they return him, if they do and he's innocent, they return him, if they do and he's guilty, he serves out his sentence and they return him. Very simple.
They have conspicuously failed to agree with this, despite such a thing actually being fairly common in extradition requests where there is concerns someone is being extradited to be turned over to yet another country.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Let me get this straight: he is guilty of being "Self-aggrandizing asshole"? He should burn.
It gets worse: he is doing it in a society obsessed with celebrities!!!! 4/5 of critics on slashdot repeat something along this line.
I don't know, but this buzzing in the back of my head sure sounds like my "skeptometer" warning me of something. PR stunt? Getting everybody, *today* of all times, to dismiss a guy because he craves for attention sure is weird. Maybe it's just me...
Guantanamo operates under a different set of rules which are based around the definition of an "enemy combatant" which is nothing more than an attempt to redefine POW status and POW treatment when the POW in question is not fighting for a recognized state. Under a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions the vast majority of these guys could be summarily executed when caught engaged in combat without any insignia identifying them as state supported soldiers. The US judicial system was not designed to handle these types of situations where crimes or potential crimes are committed outside of US jurisdiction and the countries where the crimes are being committed are incapable or unwilling to use their own justice systems to address the problem. The US criminal system is a separate entity and operates under an entirely different set of rules. Any laws Assange may have committed, and I am not saying he did commit any crime, would clearly fall under the normal definition of criminal acts and therefore he would not be shuttled off to Guantanamo under any circumstances. Even if he was guilty of all the things people accuse him of those offences can be properly adjudicated in the civilian justice system. Hell, Guantanamo would be closed by now if the countries where these people were captured would allow their repatriation. The US has been offering huge sums of money to any country willing to take these guys and are finding few takers. The US should just load them all up, strap on some parachutes, and then air drop them back where they were collected and be done with it. Guantanamo has already served it's main purpose which was to introduce some fear into anyone thinking of launching a terrorist attack against the US. Before Guantanamo these guys did not fear the US if they were caught. Lobbing a few cruise missiles at suspected terrorist training camps does not really provide effective deterrent and fear. All of the major intelligence services in the world have certain reputations when it comes to the treatment of anyone they get hold of. The CIA and MI5 were considered light weights when compared to the FSB or the former KGB. However, the one agency terrorists do fear is the Mossad. The Mossad has demonstrated their willingness to hunt down and kill anyone trying to harm them no matter what country they are living in. They made no secret of hunting down every person involved in the 1972 Olympic killing of the Jewish athletes. They have also been relentless in hunting down any former Nazis as well. They have shown a remarkable ability to give the entire world the finger when going after people and not one country has ever tried to stop them. Most of the other security agencies even depend on the middle east intelligence the Mossad provides.
That's absurd. Just because Assange supporters think he's being framed doesn't mean he's above the law. If the witnesses are questionable, that's a job for his defense lawyer. If he is innocent, and it's nothing but his word against theirs, that's not enough to convict.
This has nothing to do with the issue of Assange breaking the law by refusing to appear for questioning, and it's melodramatic and goofy, painting him as some courageous knight "willing to shine light into dark castles." Give us a freaking break.
It's also ironic since Assange has been fighting against having his own personal details plastered online. It sounds as if your hero worship of Julian Assange is preventing you from objectively assessing both the accusations and his behavior in response to them.
Assange is one man. Do you believe that HE IS WIKILEAKS? I know he certainly does, but he isn't.
In the mind of most of the ballast members of our society, Assange == Wikileaks. And you must admit that if Mr. Assange is successfully railroaded on this charge, then forever after, the media will refer to wikileaks as "Wikileaks, founded by disgraced sex offender Julian . . .".
Guess what, there was whistle blowing before Assange, and most of the time, it wasn't done by attention whores who care more about being in the media and spending other peoples donations than actually getting the truth out. And by truth I mean one of two things, either highly edited and manipulative to the point of flat out lying releases of specific documents or say ... video. Or release a whole bunch of random documents that were simply stolen for no reason other than to be embarrassing.
Unlike you, I am not willing to speculate about Mr. Assange's motivations, or to wildly assert that I know all of the conflicting pressures and perils he faces. So I am willing to cut him a LOT of slack, because he is personally risking his life by exposing very powerful people and organizations.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Why did Assange go to the 52nd state (the UK) rather than France or Russia?
Remind whistle blowers it's easy to self publish with Freenet and then use Wikileaks.
And don't put too much importance on this story. There are plenty of other Assanges out there. Keep calm and carry on.
A blog I run for the wealth
That's absurd. Just because Assange supporters think he's being framed doesn't mean he's above the law. If the witnesses are questionable, that's a job for his defense lawyer. If he is innocent, and it's nothing but his word against theirs, that's not enough to convict.
Normally yes. In this situation, the odd behavior of the prosecutor, and then the other prosecutor, is sufficient evidence to conclude that something is very fishy. Given this, Mr. Assange would be insane to expect a normal trial that respects law and precedent.
This has nothing to do with the issue of Assange breaking the law by refusing to appear for questioning, and it's melodramatic and goofy, painting him as some courageous knight "willing to shine light into dark castles." Give us a freaking break.
I am sorry that you don't see the larger role that Mr. Assange plays. He is a hero to me, the only living hero I've ever had. He bravely stood as the lightning-rod for an organization that took on entrenched corruption. The ugliness in Sweden cannot change that, even if he's guilty as charged. I'm sorry that this makes you feel venomous or resentful... but real life hero worship is still possible, even in the current cynical sceptical anti-certainty era.
If you yourself do something similarly brave and worthy, then I will worship you too.
It's also ironic since Assange has been fighting against having his own personal details plastered online. It sounds as if your hero worship of Julian Assange is preventing you from objectively assessing both the accusations and his behavior in response to them.
That's not irony. At most it is hypocrisy, which is a minor sin -- and a sin only practicable by those who at least have the certainty to profess a moral code at all, in the face of today's legions of shrieking sceptics.
...but I don't concede that it is even hypocrisy. Mr. Assange is not a corrupt institution pilfering trainloads of wealth out of an unsuspecting society. Therefore, his personal details are not worthy of exposure.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE