Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-the-travel's-free dept.

Richard_at_work writes "After losing his appeal to the UK Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, Assange's lawyer was given leave to seek a reopening of the case on particular grounds — the UK Supreme Court has now rejected those grounds and upheld its earlier ruling that Assange should be extradited, which could happen in the next few days."

14 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Buggars! by xystren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to Team USA: World Police

    1. Re:Buggars! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.
      Does the UK have an extradition arrangement with Sweden (in this case as part of the EU I would figure)? Yes.
      Would the Swedish legal system treat him appropriately from the UK perspective if convicted of this particular crime, and will he get appropriate process? Yes, but that's why they have an extradition agreement at all.

      At that point he's just delaying the inevitable. If not, then you'd have to kick one or both of Sweden and the UK out of the EU for not upholding the same basic sets of rights and rules. The question of whether or not the US is fabricating the whole thing can be addressed fairly in sweden (at least the UK would consider it fair).

    2. Re:Buggars! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are allegations.
      Mostly withdrawn.
      There is no indictment.
      Required for extradition.
      You presume guilt.
      In the absence of evidence or formal charges in court.

      It looks like Jack Lint is warming up his instruments, in Information Retrieval.

      I'm glad that you endorse and encourage this sort of thing. Let's get Tuttle, next.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Buggars! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      This.

      The guy let his own ego lead him into a situation that enabled him to get caught in a honey trap. He got a little bit of PR out of it, but he and his organization would have been much better off had he realized how susceptible he was to manipulation.

      Ironic, given that he worked at Seatec Astronomy :)

    4. Re:Buggars! by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US has an extradition treaty with the UK too, so I wonder why they are taking such an indirect route.

      My best guess is that they feel they will have an easier time getting Sweeden to extradite him on hazier charges (since the DoJ has yet to find anything to actually charge him with) and the UK is a bit more obsessed with proper use of law (a rather old and neurotic British trait).

    5. Re:Buggars! by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      Oh, it's not extradition for the alleged crimes that has people worried. It's the fact that he was already detained for investigation for a month in Sweden until the case was closed and he was permitted to leave the country. Now they want him back. Are they going to repeat the same process with different prosecutor's until the outcome changes? That's suspicious to the point of being terrifying.

    6. Re:Buggars! by Kharny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    7. Re:Buggars! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the Swedish legal system allows it then... so what?

      The Swedish legal system isn't a variant on the common law system of the US/UK/Canada etc. Nor is it obliged to be. If the UK has decided their process is fair enough to allow extradition treaties then that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

      There's nothing particularly suspicious to the point of being terrifying. If their system allows that, and you think it's terrifying don't ever travel to sweden. For all it matters their system could be the Kings word is law, and he is the supreme legal authority in the country, if the UK signed a treaty agreeing that system is sufficiently fair to allow extraditions then they are bound by that agreement.

    8. Re:Buggars! by Aryden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually this is quite incorrect. The UK has quite strict rule regarding extradition, generally they will only extradite someone if the alleged crime is a crime in both the UK and the requester country. This was the initial argument brought to the extradition hearings and why the UK decided to hear it all out first. On the other hand, Sweden and the US have some very loose and flimsy extradition agreements. You can be extradited from Sweden to the US for virtually anything. The US and the UK have extradition agreements but they are far more rigid and complex. The US would have had very little luck getting him out of the UK.

      The real problem here is that once you read all of the available information and do maybe 5 minutes worth of research, you start to draw a picture that this really is a fabrication. Whether they have done it for attention or whether they do it for a government, doesn't really matter. But they do not decide to seek police assistance until AFTER they have texted each other, after Ardin throws a party FOR Assange, after she tweets bragging about the party, her guests and Assange.

      Now, do I believe that the behavior would be abhorrent if true? Yes, most certainly. Do I draw a personal conclusion about the events that took place, the two women and Assange? No, I wasn't there, I do not know the truth of the matter and I will not mentally convict of raping a woman when I have absolutely no clue as to whether or not he really did it.

  2. It's sad by axlr8or · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to live in a world where people fear the truth. As you can see, it is a problem that the lies only get bigger and bigger. Assange shouldn't fear going to court to display the truth. But everyone knows its just a stunt to get him put away.

  3. Oh good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    And... cue the ignorant douchebags shouting about how this is just a ploy for the US gov't to get its hands on him.

    And... cue the +5 Insightfuls for people who have no idea how the process of extradition under an EU Arrest Warrant works, but are absolutely sure that somehow Sweden will throw away its relations with the EU in order to satisfy the US, when the US could have just as easily requested extradition directly from the UK if they wanted him.

    Because it's only FUD if you disagree with it.

    Time was, Slashdotters had a bit of logic and rational thought to go along with their opinions. Now it's just tin foil hats and "it must be true because I read it on a BLOG! On the INTERNET!" all the way down.

  4. Re:Hang on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Really? Forcing himself (sans condom) on someone when their consent clearly stipulates the use of a condom? When the consent is implicitly withdrawn if he DOES NOT have a condom?

    Because shit man, if that's the case, I've been caught a few times without a condom, and suffered blue balls as a result until I could rub one out to relieve some pressure. If I had known that the expert legal team of Hatta & Sons, LLC would clear me of any wrongdoing, I would've just banged her anyway, even if she said no!

    You know, since it's not RAPE to force myself on her if she at SOME point consented to me doing anything sexual with her whatsoever. I guess we could call it the "I got needs that these bitches need to satisfy" defense. I'm sure it'll be airtight.

  5. Why don't you look at what's actually going on? by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime
    2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged
    3. He got permission to leave the country and it was granted
    4. He's offered to answer questions remotely - offers that have been rebuffed

    So, does this look like a normal prosecution or a witch hunt to you?

    1. Re:Why don't you look at what's actually going on? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Extraditions for questioning are not unusual

      Of course they are, as a Google search not based on the fallacy of anecdotes will quickly determine. First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.

      As far as the crime, I take it you are an expert in Swedish law?

      I take it you're still ignoring the fact that he was questioned and released, and then granted permission to leave the country? And that charges were already dismissed before being brought by another prosecutor? Or that one of the witnesses has possibly recanted and left the country? Wouldn't want inconvenient parts of the storyline to interfere with the witch hunt....