Via
Flying to Sweden via Gitmo or perhaps Diego Garcia..
Court OK's Assange Sweden extradition, given 7 days to appeal
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden, following a ruling by a judge at South East London's Belmarsh magistrates court this morning. Assange has seven days to bring an appeal against the extradition to Sweden to face questions regarding two alleged sexual assaults in the country. Judge Howard Riddle …
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:04 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
Nah
He's going to Sweden.
The US DoJ hasn't finished building their case against him yet.
If he was smart, he'd go to Sweden, either face trial, get a plea deal, and serve any time he may face. Then quietly go back to Australia which btw, he has recently said he wanted to return to....
You have to understand is that the whole thing about Sweden is that if he's convicted, he has zero chance of getting Swedish Citizenship. That's what he wants.
The simple truth is that if Julian went back to Sweden to face his accusers and profess his innocence. He wants the media storm. He wants the attention.
So please take this one step at a time.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 15:55 GMT Is it me?
Minor Point
Assange is protected by Human Rights laws in both Sweden and the UK that prevent him being extradited to any country that is likely to torture him or execute him. He could only be extradited to the USA if they gave an undertaking that neither of these would happen.
I suspect the same is also true of Australia.
This applies to him regardless of his citizenship.
I agree this guy just wants publicity, even if he is charged and found guilty, Sweden would deport him to Australia, not the USA.
One wonders how much of UK tax payers money this tosser is intending to waste. Most of his problems are of his own making, if he had stayed where he was in Sweden this would all be over by now.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 22:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Yes, it is you ...
"Assange is protected by Human Rights laws in both Sweden and the UK that prevent him being extradited to any country that is likely to torture him or execute him."
The same law also applied to an alarming number of innocent people who were nevertheless extradited to illegal stateless prisons such as 'Gitmo. By and with the full knowlege of our own and other governments.
The "law" didn't stop any of it from happening.
The law which you put so much faith in, these days, is whatever they tell you it is.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
He left the country
after being told that there was nothing to answer for at that time, but then it became political and the Swedes changed their minds after he'd left. They say they want to question him, and possibly prosecute - he's never refused to make himself available for questioning in the UK.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 14:26 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
Haven't you paid attention to the Appeals hearing?
Look,
I hate to break it to you but under cross, Assange's Swedish lawyer admitted that while he was in constant contact with the Swedish investigators/prosecutors, there was a 6 day period where he was out of contact with his client. He wasn't back in contact with his client until after Assange had left the country and the arrest warrant was issued.
These statements contradict his earlier testimony.
If you follow the time line laid out by the prosecution, you will clearly see that Assange obfuscated the legal process by fleeing the country.
Hence the arrest warrant. They did not 'change their minds' after he left, but that he was intentionally out of contact with his lawyer until after he left the country so that he could not be available for questioning and eventual charges being brought forth.
With Dan Gooding chiding me about getting my facts straight... one would hope that he would chide you for not doing the same.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 14:33 GMT Mad Mike
Ian Michael Gumby
It gets more and more preposterous. Now, you seem to be suggesting that simply being out of contact with your lawyer is evidence of fleeing or trying to pervert justice or something.........
Strangely enough, ensuring you are contactable 24 hours a day 7 days a week is not as yet part of legal requirements. When he lasted contacted the authorities (via his lawyer or not), they said they would not press charges and he was free to go. If things changed in the meantime and he didn't know, that's their problem. Given what they had told him, all the onous was on them to tell him they'd changed their mind, not for him to constantly check he hadn't missed something.
Some people will twist anything to try and prove their position including reading a devious meaning into any act regardless of evidence.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 15:55 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@Mad Mike ??? WTF?
More and more preposterous?
I don't know about you, but when I've had to deal with lawyers in civil matters, I make sure that I'm always available. That is, they can always reach me and I will respond within 24 hours.
If for some reason I was involved in a criminal trial? You bet your sweet arse that I'd be easier to get a hold of.
And yes, during one civil issue, I was traveling and busy all over the US and Toronto. Much larger than Sweden and yes, there are places where cell phones don't work and Internet access was sketchy at best.
With respect to Assange... c'mon, really? 6 days with no ability to connect with his lawyer?
Text Messages? e-mail? Voice mail? Contacting known friends?
Oh yeah that's right... he was in a Ted K cabin and was pretending to be a Luddite.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 16:44 GMT Mad Mike
Whatever
You can do whatever you like, but if he wants to go to a retreat with no access or simply not accept calls, that's his perogative. After all, he is innocent until proven guilty.......supposedly. If you choose to be available all the time, that's up to you. I would probably ensure I was available as well, but that's me. We all know Assange is a strange man, but not being in contact for 6 days does not automaticallty prove fleeing or evasion of whatever as you seem to suggest. it simply proves he wasn't in contact for 6 days!! If they really wanted to contact him that badly for interview or charge, they could always have issued a warrant for his arrest, however, it seems it wasn't that important!! Yes, his story changes sometimes, but so does the prosecution case. If they want to speak to him so urgently now they need to issue an international arrest warrant, how come they didn't issue an arrest warrant when he was non-contactable for 6 days? Their story makes as little sense and is as contradictory as his!!
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 22:44 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@Mad Mike Re Whatever...
Ok...
Lets try and take this slowly...
A. is accused of raping not one but two girls.
There is an ongoing investigation. Early on in the investigation, he is questioned and the matter dropped. The lawyers for the girls objects and the case is picked up by Ny.
Initially, does Ny have enough evidence to hold Assange and restrict him from leaving the country? No. So Assange goes on his way. Ny starts her investigation. Wants to bring Assange in for questioning.
Now Assange's defense attorney earlier in the case said that Ny hadn't communicated that she had wanted to have Assange come in for questioning. Yet under cross, he recants his earlier testimony saying that it was a mistake. He then admits that Ny wanted to question Assange yet his lawyer wasn't able to communicate with him.
Yeah. Right.
And of course the judge didn't buy it either.
Not to mention if it were a normal person, they'd have contacted their lawyer to see if it was ok to leave the country before they left the country. That would have meant that there is a reasonable expectation that Assange should have been in some contact with his attorney before leaving.
Now your counter...
You do realize that the arrest warrant was issued after he had gone missing for the 6 days and he was leaving the country as the arrest warrant was being issued.
So no their story makes a lot of sense.
The Judge saw through the defense's lie.
-
Friday 25th February 2011 11:56 GMT Mad Mike
@Ian Michael Gumby
You've just done an about turn yourself. You've just admitted in your entry that there was insufficient evidence and no right to limit Assanges movements. You then contend he fled. If Ny got in touch with Assanges lawyer and said they wanted to make contact, but his lawyer couldn't contact him, so what!! That's fine, he's still done nothing wrong. If you want to hang around in constant communication and ask for permission to leave every country you're in all the time on the off chance they want to talk to you about something, that's your choice, but people normally have lives to get on with!! He had been told nothing was being done and no limitations had been placed on his movements, so job done. He is free to go anywhere he likes. Why should he keep calling his lawyer or make sure he's contactable. To his knowledge, everything is sorted......finished. The fact Ny suddenly wants to speak with him puts the onus on her contacting him and if she can't, that's her problem, not his.
If he was leaving the country as the arrest warrant was being issued, it rather implies the prosecutors are lying. If they knew he was leaving the country (otherwise it wouldn't have been an international arrest warrant!!), why didn't they simply go and get him as they must have known where he was!! If they didn't know where he was (and therefore he could have stayed in Sweden all along), why issue an internation arrest warrant? Doesn't make sense!! Either they did know or they didn't. Either way, there was no need to issue an international arrest warrant.
If they were that concerned about speaking with him, they could have put airports etc. on alert to arrest him as he left!! Of course, they never did that!! Too easy I suppose............All this suggests very strongly that the prosecutors have been lying as they both knew his was leaving (and therefore had to know where he was) and yet couldn't go and get him. Also, after six days, they didn't even put a watch on airports!! After all, leaving by scheduled flight is such a devious way!!
-
Friday 25th February 2011 12:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Presposterous Fart
"Lets try and take this slowly...
A. is accused of raping not one but two girls."
OK, well your first premise is incorrect so the rest of your argument's not going to amount to much.
He's being prosecuted for 'sex by surprise' (not rape), i.e. sex without a condom after a woman requests it even if the sex is consensual. It's fine-able in Sweden by 5,000 kronor (about $715).
Nice attempt at a troll, but you're too much of an ass-hat to do it properly Mr. Gumbo.
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 22:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @Mad Mike ??? WTF?
"when I've had to deal with lawyers in civil matters, I make sure that I'm always available. "
Do you get sued often?
I assume from your creepy obsession and constant baseless accusations against assange that this isn't the first time you've found yourdelf on a groundless vendetta of hate against someone you took a dislike too.
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 16:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
@mad mike
--"Some people will twist anything to try and prove their position including reading a devious meaning into any act regardless of evidence."
That's *so* true.
After all, if there was a big conspiracy, it'd have been easy for the Swedes to pop over here, have a quick word with him, and then announce they were charging him.
Or just keep him in Sweden.
Which obviously means that the fact they *didn't* do either of those things proves there was some kind of big conspiracy....
-
-
-
Friday 25th February 2011 11:11 GMT Scorchio!!
Re: He left the country
"after being told that there was nothing to answer for at that time, but then it became political and the Swedes changed their minds after he'd left. They say they want to question him, and possibly prosecute - he's never refused to make himself available for questioning in the UK."
Wrong: Making himself available in the UK is an irrelevant, non sequitur offering. He left the country in spite of having prior agreed to meet the Swedish police so that the investigation could be finalised; in addition, his defence was told of his impending arrest by the police (big mistake really, because he fled), and guess what? Julian skipped away to the UK.
Now the UK are willing to let their European colleagues do what they had intended before Assange skipped, and jolly good too.
There is a question at the back of my mind about what the Swedish legal authorities will do to his Swedish counsel, who has already admitted in a British court that they had contacted him multiply about Assange's whereabouts. If they can prove that he informed Assange of his impending arrest and, in so doing, facilitated his departure from Sweden, I'd say there's a fairly substantial case there. If I were in their position I'd pursue it, if only because a precedent would otherwise be set.
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:45 GMT Mad Mike
Ian Michael Gumby
Almost entirely wrong. He didn't flee at all. If you knew your stuff, you would know he initially atteneded questioning etc. and the Swedish prosecutors said they wouldn't press charges. He then asked if he could leave the country and they said yes. He therefore left. Then, the Swedish prosector did a complete u-turn, decided they wanted another word and threw their toys out their pram. Can't see he fled or did anything wrong at all. In fact, he acted perfectly during the investigation and decision not to charge.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 15:12 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@Mad Mike
El Reg was kind enough to post a link to the actual decision which goes in to some detail of the appeal hearing...
Here's the cross of Assange's own Swedish defense lawyer:
-=-
In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact
7
him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong.
-=-
As you can see, there is some doubt to your recollection of the facts of the case.
-
Friday 25th February 2011 11:34 GMT Scorchio!!
Re: @Mad Mike
That will not stop people from denying the fact, regrettably. One of the amazing things about this case is the tendency, both from Assange himself/his defence and from his public supporters, is their complete denial of the facts, and embrace of supposition that is not concordant with them.
This silliness is both immature and dangerous. It will take a long time to clean up the mess here, and arresting the LoIC dupes is but a beginning. It will happen though.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 16:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
@John G Imrie
>>"He left because the charges where dropped.. "
Says who?
Where's the reliable source for all the repeated claims that 'charges were dropped'?
I see an awful lot of claims, but no real evidence.
And if one of the complaints against the EAW is that Julian hasn't ever been charged with anything, how can charges that never happened in the first place be dropped?
Surely, people making poor arguments tend to make Julian's supporters look ignorant, and do him a disservice?
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 12:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why wouldn't this happen
He is an Australian national, so not really our problem
Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse
Sexual offences are an extraditable offence
He is physically fit (or at least fit enough to bonk)
He may be eccentric but he is not a nutter
Fits the bill on all counts, so just have to wait for the next episode of this soap opera.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 12:48 GMT Ian Yates
"Sexual offences are an extraditable offence"
Part of the defence was, I believe, that what he was being charged with wasn't a sexual offence in the UK.
And the "Australian national" thing is irrelevant as we are obliged (morally and constitutionally) to not send anyone somewhere to suffer unfairly, regardless of nationality.
Personally, I think he should go and defend himself. If he's innocent, congrats, if not, obeying the law in the country you're visiting and taking personal responsibility is part of life. I've got nothing against the guy, but he sounds like he's just trying to avoid giving his side of the story in a court.
I may be naive, but I don't believe Sweden will be able to get away with an extradition to the USA, even if they wanted to. Any extradition from the UK would not allow a forwarding extradition without concluding the original trial, and we constitutionally can't extradite someone to a country where they face cruel punishment (i.e., death).
I'd be first in line to protest his release should he be couriered out of Sweden.
(Beer, since I'm off tomorrow)
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:45 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
@Ian
As the Swedish prosecutor pointed out... In the treaty, RAPE is actually #23 on the list (going from memory) of charges where you don't have to consider if it is a crime in the country he/she is being extradited from.
As to an extradition to the US...
If/when the US DoJ brings charges, he can and will be extradited. Whether that's in Sweden, the UK, or Australia. There is no issue of the Death Penalty because it will be off the table in order to get the extradition process started. Not to mention the fact that for any charge outside of the Espionage Act, the death penalty isn't allowed.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 22:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re : And apparently your EAW doesn't require
Surely you mean, they make the laws, we need to live by them.
But even that isn't true as many judicial reviews resulting in verdicts that so called laws are actually illegal will attest.
Also, I believe it is everyone's duty to refuse to obey unjust laws whoever makes and upholds them.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:45 GMT Mad Mike
Point Taken
I take your point that I got the dates etc. slightly wrong. However, it doesn't alter the fact that in recentish history (50-60 years), Sweden has been guilty of gross human rights abuses. So, trying to appear morally better than everyone else is a bit rich. I can't find the reference now, but I'm sure I found a journalistic article that said it went into the 70s at least. But either way, the point is valid and applicable and they're trying to make themselves out to be morally better than everyone else.
P.S.
Wikipedia isn't always right!!
-
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:34 GMT The BigYin
A title
It wasn't "rape" as in "hold them down and penetrate by force" it was more a case of (allegedly) not using a condom during consensual sex (or not using a good enough one or something). The women only complained when they found out about one another and the case was already dismissed once, only to be resurrected in odd circumstances by a Swedish MP (AIUI anyway).
Do not confuse what he has been accused with in Sweden with the UK understanding of "rape". It bigs-up what be has been accused of and belittles actual rape.
But as this is an EAW, he has little hope of fighting it. It was a crime in Sweden, he can be extradited, the fact it is not an offence in the UK is irrelevant. Hell, Poland uses EAWs for traffic offences! The rule of thumb is - once an EAW is issued and you are caught in the UK, the EAW trumps all UK law and it is game over. The UK authorities will just hand you over, regardless of offence and regardless of the requesting regime (e.g. Greece, not really known for the quality of its judicial system). There is a long list of precedents with this being the case.
It really is quite disgusting.
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:34 GMT JimC
@ extraditable to face allegations...
When you think about it they remain allegations until a trial has been completed and a verdict delivered. So the onnly alternative to extradition to face allegations is to have a trial held without the presence of the defendant, which doesn't sound like a good thing at all...
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:45 GMT Ian Michael Gumby
Errr...yeah. Ok... think about it...
"Should we all be extraditable to face allegations? Doesn't feel right to me."
Until you are convicted of a crime, any crime, all you do is face allegations.
The Swedes feel that the women's evidence and accusations are credible enough for a trial.
So too did Assange because he intentionally left jurisdiction and denied these women their rights under Swedish law.
(You do remember where Assange's own Swedish Lawyer, under oath, admitted that while he was in contact with the Swedish investigators, he was not in contact with Assange for 6 days and recanted his earlier testimony.)
No means No!
-
Thursday 24th February 2011 13:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
RE: Allegations
Of course they are merely allegations. Until anyone is found guilty of something in a court of law there can only be allegations. Even if the alleged criminal admits the crime, shows video proof of the crime and has a signed letter from God stating he committed the crime.
And so, yes, under the EAW we are all extraditable to face allegations. If they are false / wrongful then you have recourse for compensation and possibly a criminal case against anyone who broke the law in doing so.
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
