Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Julian Assange May Be Extradited
sirlark writes with an update on the protracted legal proceedings regarding Julian Assange's extradition to Sweden: "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offenses. The judgement was reached by a majority of five to two, the court's president, Lord Phillips, told the hearing. Mr Assange's legal team was given 14 days to consider the ruling before a final decision is made, leaving the possibility the case could be reheard."
This may, however, not be the end. From the article: "Lord Phillips said five of the justices agreed the warrant had been lawful because the Swedish prosecutor behind the warrant could be considered a proper 'judicial authority' even it they were not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements. This point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips, and two of the justices, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, had disagreed with the decision. But Ms Rose immediately indicated she could challenge the judgement saying that it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties should be implemented. She said this convention had not been raised during the hearing. " This led to the court staying the order until June 13th to give Assange's lawyers time to argue this avenue.
What are they extraditing him for? Is he charged with any crime? This smells like bullshit to me.
I don't see what he and his attorneys hoped to gain from fighting the extradition. The merit of the case in Sweden is another matter, but that isn't something an extradition court will decide. They don't try the case, they just decide if the request for extradition is a legal one, meets the standards for whatever agreement there is with said nation and so on.
In the case of the UK and Sweden there's a pretty strong extradition treaty so there really wasn't any way there's be another outcome.
Even if he managed to stop it on a technicality of something like the prosecutor not being the right person to be able to request the extradition, Sweden would just go and make a more formal request through their ambassador.
Among countries with strong extradition treaties about the only time it gets denied is if it is a crime they just don't extradite for (minor crimes are often things that they won't) or if the punishment isn't something they'll allow. That has happened with the US and Canada. Canada won't extradite for capital crimes, they aren't ok with the death penalty. So the US has to agree not to seek it, and then the extradition will go ahead.
It really has gotten to the point of rather silly. He's going to have to go and face the charges in Sweden. If they'll stick is a whole different matter, but that is up to the Swedish courts. You don't get to just run to another country and hide from criminal charges, particularly in Europe. What with a bunch of countries near each other and fairly easy borders, they understand the importance of such things.
I'm really not sure what they were going for, other than just a delaying tactic.
I'd just like to be the first to say welcome to the U.S. Mr. Assange. How was your brief visit to Sweden?
If the government can't get you on what they want they settle for anything that puts you behind bars even if it's something dicey like this lame charge. It's one of the reasons for search warrants or my favorite is searching your car when they pull you over for a dead tail light. If you look hard enough you can usually find something to bust people on. Translated if they want to put you in jail they can probably come up with something to bust you on.
I doubt that, UK has stronger extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has so why not just request that UK turn him over?
H'e suspected of a crime in Sweden and refused to return for interrogation so the Swedish authorities requested that he be extradited from the UK to Sweden so the investigation can be finished.
Not at all. Sweden has issued an international arrest warrant and started extradition proceedings. Since Sweden is regarded as a friendly country with a legitimate government and judiciary they really don't have any choice. Moreover the alleged sexual offences happened in Sweden. It's not as if they want to try him on some nebulous charges relating to Wikileaks.
Does that help clarify things?
Palm trees and 8
the alleged sexual offences happened in Sweden. It's not as if they want to try him on some nebulous charges
I must admit, it is easy to forget an important detail: the original prosecutor dropped the case entirely, citing a lack of evidence. Sounds pretty nebulous to me...
Palm trees and 8
This alleged rape case has meant that rape is what people think about when they hear about wikileaks - rather than the crimes/... that wikileaks has exposed. Wikileaks itself has also taken its eyes off the ball.
As a way of diverting attention from the real issues the rape case & extradition has been very successful.
The second Swedish prosecutor, the one who revived the charges, is a US CIA asset. You can verify this yourself. He represented the US CIA for the Swedish Extraordinary Rendition case.
From the above:
From the Wikileaks statement released in advance of the ruling:
* The US Grand Jury reportedly possesses a sealed indictment, which could be used to extradite Assange to the United States.
* Secret subpoenas have been served on ISPs and online services for the private data of WikiLeaks staff and supporters.
* Special task-forces have been setup by various various US intelligence agencies, including the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and the US State Department.
* Associates of WikiLeaks have been detained and interrogated at US and UK airports, their equipment confiscated, and attempts have been made to turn them into informants.
* If the indictment is unsealed upon Assange's extradition to Sweden he faces further removal from Sweden to the United States.
* Meanwhile, an unprecedented extralegal denial of service by Visa and Mastercard has cut off funding to WikiLeaks, almost shutting down WikiLeaks' publishing activity.
* If the extradition to Sweden is quashed in the outcome of the court judgement, he faces extradition from the United Kingdom.
* Both Swedish and UK governments have been coordinating with the US, taking steps to facilitate a US extradition request in either eventuality. Assange cannot take steps to avoid either risk. For 539 days he has been detained without charge in the UK under house arrest.
* Under US pressure the Australian government has relaxed its own extradition law, smoothing any possible extradition from Assange's home country. The Gillard government has also amended legislation to give Australian intelligence agencies powers of surveillance over WikiLeaks supporters.