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."

23 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      Mostly withdrawn.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 Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:

      Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

      The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

      With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

      In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

      Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

      From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/

      Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. Re:Buggars! by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fundamental issue is that these are different interpretations of the law than those reached in hundreds of other past similar cases, including some far more aggressive than this.

      I feel sorry for those girls who have been told by the courts they weren't raped in far less pleasant ordeals than this, yet this, a much more borderline case, is affirmed as rape.

      It's frankly disgusting.

    9. Re:Buggars! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      So does the UK...

      Not like Sweden. Sweden has an arrangement with the USA which allows them to temporarily transfer somebody in their custody to the USA for questioning on charges not related to crimes committed in Sweden. This "temporary surrender" bypasses the normal legal processes needed for extradition.

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

      Bottom line: The easiest way for the USA needs to get their hands on him is to get him into Sweden. After that he can vanish. And it's all perfectly legal.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. 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. Re:Assange Kardashian? by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

    There we go. If he marries one of them he's off the hook.

    Well, he'll probably wisely choose the death penalty anyway...

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  4. Re:Guilty? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    That, of course, is not the actual charge. The actual charge itself being just one of four.

    The meme "he's being charged for having sex without a condom" is a deliberate attempt to skew the actual situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything serious. I'm not saying he's not. But I'm just pointing out, the *actual* charges are that 1) the woman *only consented* to sex with a condom but he only pretended to use one, violating the terms of her consent; 2) that he started having sex with another woman in her sleep; 3) that he held one woman down in a sexual manner against her consent; and 4) that he rubbed his penis against one girl without her consent.

    Again, it's not "stranger in the bushes, knife up to the throat rape" that's being charged, but the charges are not "he had sex without a condom".

    --
    I am Melllvar, Keeper of the Tapes!
  5. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    [citation needed]

    (or vagina)

  6. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here you go

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  7. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I should also point out that if you google her name, there are allegations of some serious ties to the CIA via her odd history of involvement with anti-Castro groups in Cuba. Can't imagine why a CIA operative would be in the West Bank with an innocent Christian group trying to get close to Palestinian leaders, though.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  8. 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....

  9. Re:Nope, but sexi without a condom by luncheon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have you even read any of the cables? 'boring diplomatic gossip' is the only stuff the mainstream media wanted to publish, there's more interesting stuff there like Shapiro's involvement on the 2002 Chavez coup d'etat, smear campaigns to Ullanta Umala and Rafael Correa, and so on and so forth...

  10. Bingo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No doubt he was easily setup as they knew he was massively vain and sexually creepy. That's the real tragedy of Wikileaks; they are forever tarred by this fundamentally flawed human being.

    But to believe this has *nothing* to do with US hegemony is truly ignorant - especially in light of Hillary Clinton just happening to 'drop by' Sweden this week. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange touches down at Gitmo instead.

  11. Re:Oh, bullshit, AC. by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

    You realize they questioned Assange at the time and released him, right? You realize he asked for permission to leave the country and it was granted, right? You realize that it's extremely rare for people to be deported without even being charged, right?

    Right?

  12. Re:Hang on. by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the woman wanted to have sex with him but only with a condom but didn't care enough to enforce that beyond the honor system. In your mind that constitutes the cruel and vicious physical attack that is rape? I'm sorry but there is no set of circumstances under which the woman wants to be penetrated and it is still rape. There are few where she could find out something later that is a different crime for instance if the man had a life threatening STD but it doesn't magically become rape as well. Actual rape is a vicious crime on par with attempted murder. There are real rape victims out there and this demeans them.

    You can't rape by technicality. Rape isn't about a technical contract of consent it's about physically forcing yourself on to an unwilling sex partner. If you knowingly force yourself on an unwilling partner as a condition of doing something for them or not telling their partner about an affair or some other terms THAT is rape.