Slashdot Mirror
Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal
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.'"
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.
Yea, God damn those crazy, left wing Swedish liberals, always pushing their ridiculous "anti rape" agenda on the rest of the world.
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.
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.
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.
http://i.imgur.com/66fp5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EjALn.jpg
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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".
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
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.
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.