Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 5, 2011 @02:31AM from the not-so-fast dept.

beaverdownunder writes "Julian Assange has won the right to submit an appeal of his extradition to Sweden on 'public interest' grounds. He now has two weeks to come up with a convincing argument for Britain's Supreme Court. From the article: 'The judges ruled that Mr Assange's case is of general public importance, but the Supreme Court could still refuse to hear his case. Mr Assange now has 14 days to formally lodge an appeal, meaning his stay in Britain, where he has been staying since his arrest in December last year, is certain to stretch into 2012.'"

29 of 144 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First he has to win this appeal... by ArsenneLupin · 2011-12-05 02:34 · Score: 3, Funny

... and only then will he be truly safe!
1. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by TWX · 2011-12-05 02:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not really. If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Richard_at_work · 2011-12-05 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From the level of paranoia he and his supporters are publicly showing, he's never going to be "safe", someone will always be out to get him...
  For example, the huge fuss made over "number plate recognition cameras" that his supporters claim were "recently installed" near his bail address. Turns out that not only are they bog standard excessive speed warning cameras (which don't even record vehicles breaking the speed limit), but they had been there since 2002 and 2003.
3. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-05 02:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.
  That does include Australia. If he wins the appeal, the only way he goes home again is if he just goes to Sweden and stands trial.
  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2004C00142
  Sweden also has extradition treaties with the rest of the EU, the US, and Canada. New Zealand doesn't even require an extradition treaty for another country to submit an extradition request. So if Assange ever wanted to live outside the UK again, he wouldn't have many First-world options left.
4. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Zemran · 2011-12-05 02:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Most countries only extradite criminals. The main point is that he is only wanted for questioning and there has been no suggestion of there being a charge ready. Britain should not have arrested him as there are no valid grounds for that. If there was an charge pending then yes but there is not. The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
5. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by drinkypoo · 2011-12-05 03:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
  The US and UK are having disagreements about extradition laws these days. The US recently passed a law saying we would never extradite anyone for a libel case since the UK has fucked up libel laws, for example, but that's hardly the first shot.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by RogueyWon · 2011-12-05 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We Brits do have a legal process and it is being followed to the letter in this case. That the case now looks likely to go to the Supreme Court is pretty good evidence of that (implying, indeed, rather more scrutiny than you might get around a "normal" extradition case). The thing with a legal process is that it will sometimes produce decisions you like, and sometimes produce decisions you don't. That's normal - not evidence of a conspiracy at work.
  There are elements of the case that are worrying (though more in general than wikileaks-specific terms), but both the Swedish and UK legal systems do seem to be "working as intended".
7. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by donscarletti · 2011-12-05 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  I've driven in the UK, I spent the whole time fretfully glancing between my speed dial to make sure I wasn't going over the limit, my periphery looking for a speed camera and very occasionally in front to see where I was going. By the time I left, I was feeling paranoid too.
  If you've got millions of people who can listen to a man like Jeremy Clarkson every week and say "hmm, I think he's got a point", it's pretty safe to say that the status quo must be pretty off balance.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
8. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Phreakiture · 2011-12-05 04:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I were him, I'd be concerned about any travel, even if the destination fits your description. The reason is that the people he has pissed off are powerful enough that they may well trump up an emergency landing in some country that would extradite him. I don't even think they would work much at hiding it . . . something like a flight from London to Paris making an emergency landing in Oslo . . . the idea being that the emergency landing isn't anywhere near a straight line between points A and B.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
9. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-05 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most countries only extradite criminals...
  Actually, countries generally are required by treaty to extradite anyone for whom the requesting country has issued a valid arrest warrant regarding a crime so they can be held over for trial--you don't have to have a conviction in hand to request extradition, just a warrant. And once presented with a valid arrest warrant, the country receiving the warrant is required by treat to arrest and detain the accused to ensure that extradition occurs. For logistical and political reasons it doesn't always work out that way, and most countries don't even bother requesting extradition unless the crime in question is a pretty serious felony; but that's the letter of the law in most cases.
  Also note that, under some treaty provisions, an uncooperative person not accused of a crime can be extradited as a material witness to a crime if the crime in question is considered sufficiently serious. And in the US, unindicted suspects who have fled the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred can also be extradicted from another state and held over if indictment is imminent (i.e. the district attorney has declared his intention to indict to the court and now it's just a matter of filing the paperwork). I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of Swedish law, but something similar might be happening here.
10. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by Arancaytar · 2011-12-05 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  Generally decisions can only be appealed to higher courts, and there is a finite hierarchy of courts. If the supreme court agrees to hear his case and then decides in his favor, that particular episode should be done.
  The story won't; something else will be tried. I expect Assange will not be safe anywhere on the planet for a long time, and he's no better off if he hides in the shadows. Extradition from a first-world country is a small concern compared with the relative ease of abduction or assassination in less developed or unstable nations.
11. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by ShooterNeo · 2011-12-05 06:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And 2 women that both admit consenting to sex with him, and maybe sorta possibly having second thoughts during the act is a serious felony? (note that neither women screamed NO or fought or do anything that would CLEARLY tell an aroused male with his penis in the good spot that he had to stop. Whatever the legal requirement is, the human race wouldn't exist if males found it easy to stop having sex)
  Heck, each of them would have let it go had they not met each other and feared STDs that they did not contract, or we would have heard about it. (because once they knew he wasn't using protection with multiple women, they rationally feared disease). They told their story, and it's some prosecutor somewhere that sees an opportunity to make a name for themself.
  And the maximum penalty for the charges he faces (that have not been filed) is 4 years in the world's most pleasant prison system.
12. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by scot4875 · 2011-12-05 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  Limecat, here's a tip for you:
  It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
13. Re:First he has to win this appeal... by KeensMustard · 2011-12-05 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No - character assassination is much more effective. The crucial thing is to ensure that the whole wikileaks story is a story about Assange, and not a story about US gunships gunning down reuters reporters, or casual threats of violence made against Al Jazeera, or the leader of a major US ally and troop contributer calling the situation in Afghanistan a clusterf*ck, or afghan boys being bought and sold for sex to warlords by US companies, and the US government sitting on their hands.
Public interest? by bhcompy · 2011-12-05 02:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

So being famous lets you get another appeal?
1. Re:Public interest? by king+neckbeard · 2011-12-05 02:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you are famous for political actions and the charges brought against you are clearly part of a foreign country's political agenda.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
2. Re:Public interest? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-05 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yea, God damn those crazy, left wing Swedish liberals, always pushing their ridiculous "anti rape" agenda on the rest of the world.
3. Re:Public interest? by Xest · 2011-12-05 02:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No the summary is awful, when I read it I thought "Oh god, people are going to completely misunderstand that", and it seems by the second post they have.
  The "public interest" bit refers to the fact that it's within the public interest to determine in British courts whether it's right for a prosecutor for the government to issue a European arrest warrant when such warrants are meant to be issued by the judiciary. It's also questioning whether Assange can even be referred to as the accused, when the Swedish police still to this date haven't yet even actually charged him with anything.
  So "public interest" isn't about Assange, it's about examining the issues Assange's case raises - the public interest is ensuring justice is done, at question because it's not clear that the European Arrest Warrant has been correctly issued not whether the British people have an interest in seeing Julian himself protected.
  Effectively, it would not be in the public interest for someone to be extradited if there is no legitimate legal grounds to do so, whether they're Julian Assange, Abu Hamza, or Gary McKinnon, justice must be upheld regardless of whether they're perceived middle ground, bad, or good.
4. Re:Public interest? by drobety · 2011-12-05 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  That's the whole point: It's nonsense to request extradition without formal charges. This is what makes the whole thing highly dubious.
5. Re:Public interest? by king+neckbeard · 2011-12-05 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  The lack of formal charges suggests that it doesn't have to be dealt with, and it reeks of a setup. It's not that Assange would never rape someone, but rather that this seems very suspicious given the timing of it.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
6. Re:Public interest? by bhcompy · 2011-12-05 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't matter how you comprehend it. Matters how the law does, and considering the accusation, it would be rape in Sweden.
7. Re:Public interest? by king+neckbeard · 2011-12-05 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I suspect that extradition treaties don't often go into great detail on what offences receive extradition and what ones don't. They might have some clear cut rules about meeting a certain level of fine or sentence, but it seems like the kind of issue that largely boils down to 'good faith' that the country seeking the extradition will use it sparingly for only the most heinous of crimes.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
8. Re:Public interest? by LordLimecat · 2011-12-05 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  From wikipedia
  Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[30] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.
  Argue with their legal system, but dont blame them for not following it.
Interesting opinion piece by SebZero · 2011-12-05 02:57 · Score: 2

Pretty biased (oh come on, it paraphrases HIS MOTHER), but nonetheless interesting:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3713222.html
Might just be replying to a troll, but .... by King_TJ · 2011-12-05 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?
From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.
Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an unsavory individual like hm to risk such an undertaking in the first place? The law of the land should work objectively, not subjectively based on peoples' opinions of the individuals being charged with crimes.
1. Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... by forkfail · 2011-12-05 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Got a question for you. What, exactly is it that he betrayed? The Western/American ideals of freedom, truth, and liberty?
  
  --
  Check your premises.
here is a couple of convincing arguments by FudRucker · 2011-12-05 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

http://i.imgur.com/66fp5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/EjALn.jpg

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Re:He already lost by drobety · 2011-12-05 03:25 · Score: 3, Informative

You are obviously not up to date. Try http://watch.spyfiles.org/#.
did his "victims" have the same right of appeal by peter303 · 2011-12-05 03:47 · Score: 2

Expose names of diplomatic and espionage parties on the web before asking their permission?