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.

9 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are they extraditing him for? Is he charged with any crime? This smells like bullshit to me.

    It's total bullshit. The entire point here is that the United States wants to get him out of the UK so that he'll be easier to legally extradite back to the US so he can be tortured.... err, prosecuted, to the fullest extent of the law.

  2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "to the fullest extent of law."

    Really?? since when does the extent of law matter in post-9/11 US ?

  3. And by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd just like to be the first to say welcome to the U.S. Mr. Assange. How was your brief visit to Sweden?

  4. Re:Gee there's a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably just to draw attention to how ridiculous, trumped-up and politically-motivated these nasty allegations against him are. Assange knows that the people behind this are hugely powerful and are not fighting fair, his only weapon is publicity. Fighting every little thing tooth and nail, with press releases all along the way, is about all he can do.

  5. Re:Gee there's a surprise by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And let's also not forget that while Assange was in Sweden, he tried to comply with police requests as much as possible, to the point of saying to the Swedish police, "OK, I'm leaving the country now, is there anything else I have to do to help sort this out?" He left Sweden thinking that this was all over and done with.

    In addition, Assange offered to answer questions by Swedish police over video chat or telephone while he was in the UK. He was refused, lending strong evidence to the idea that the purpose of the extradition request was not actually to answer the Swedish charges against him but instead to have him in physical custody so he could be shipped to the United States.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Re:I'm confused by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's on the Internet:

    "1) Julian Assange has not been charged with any offense. 2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures."

    http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

  7. Re:I'm confused by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    *tinfoil hat on*
    I believe the Swedish cases against him is just a smear campaign meant to degrade his reputation, which in turn would degrade the reputation of Wikileaks. Most of the population isn't as well informed or cynical as we are here, and they do make associations such as head of organization is bad therefore organization must be bad too.

    Once Assange has been sufficiently dragged through the mud he will be extradited to the US. At that point it won't matter what the US does to him most people won't care or will see it as a rapist getting what they deserve. It also won't matter what's posted on Wikileaks in the future because most people will pass it off as bad person spreading lies and discontent.

    Of course none of us can actually see the future and this is entirely speculation and conspiracy theory. Only time will tell.
    *tinfoil hat off*

  8. Re:I'm confused by maroberts · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, those caveats do apply. Assange will be transferred under a European Arrest Warrant, and under the terms of the Warrant he cannot be transferred to another country without the permission of the country from which he is originally extradited (the UK in this case). Given the degree of opprobrium such a move would bring the UK Government, given that extraditions to the US are already a sensitive subject, then this would be extremely unlikely to happen.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  9. Re:I'm confused by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Informative

    So you're saying that the US cleverly arranged for radical Swedish feminists to pass bad rape laws, caused numerous cases to be prosecuted under those ridiculous laws

    You've gone back much further than what my statement was about. I'm saying someone is possibly taking advantage of existing laws to do something under handed. I like your hat, but it seems to be made of wax paper instead of tinfoil.

    All I can say is based on the material I've read, here on slashdot, various blogs and news sites, it seems the woman (singular) accusing Assange of rape willingly slept with him at the time of the allegations, but later brought charges against him. You can see the timeline article on the BBC here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341). I'm of the opinion that rape is when you use violence or drugs to force someone to have sex with you. That doesn't seem to be the case here. One of the women slept with Assange willingly, but later accused him of rape because he didn't use a condom.

    Also of note, only one women accused him of rape. The other brought molestation charges against him. Both women knew each other and only after discussing their sexual encounters with Assange decided to bring charges against him. It's entirely possible that nether one alone had the courage to accuse Assange of anything, but after they talked about it they were able to draw on strength in numbers, which would be commendable, but I feel it's equally likely they're being paid off, or are conspiring to "scam" Assange as he is the head of a major organization, a poor one as I understand it, but still a major one.

    Brilliant analysis!

    Thanks!!