Lawyers acting for Julian Assange have filed appeal papers with the UK Supreme Court to fight his extradition to Sweden. This is Assange’s last chance under UK law to block his deportation to Sweden to face an investigation into alleged rape and sexual molestation, after failing to win his case in the High Court earlier this …
What a waste of time and money
Any other person would have been shipped back to Sweden to face their accuser a long time ago. This shows how money can munipulate the system. I hope he is finally sent packing. If he's innocent he has nothing to fear because he has plenty of money to buy all the justice he desires.
Re: What a waste of time and money
Yes, and in case you hadn't noticed the mother is the same. I wonder what she said about his 25 odd convictions in Australia, especially those for hacking a Pentagon computer and the Australian police force that was investigating him. Twenty years later and it is a matter of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Bye-bye Jules. Don't let the door bang you on the arse on your way out.
That's 25 charges to which he pleaded guilty. One conviction.
For which he was fined $2,100.
You seem to be suggesting that he's not entitled to due process because of this?
A waste of time? Unfortunately not...
Yes Assange is a total A-hole.
But the law is blind to that fact.
Under the law he has the same rights as anyone else. Like McKinnon.
So if he has the money to appeal, his lawyers will appeal.
Its not a waste of time because he's exercising his rights under the law.
@Ian Michael Gumby
I would add that someone needs to test the legality of this, and that someone has to have the money to spare to do so, as well as the inclination. Like him or loath him, Assange is doing just that. I just wish his legal team was doing a better job of it so we could get a better look at the system and how it works.
RE: A waste of time? Unfortunately not...
"......So if he has the money to appeal....." Unfortunately, the court costs paid by A$$ange do not cover the whole cost of the fiasco, the remainder being paid for out of British taxpayers' money.
"......You seem to be suggesting that he's not entitled to due process because of this?"
You seem to be suggesting that because A$$nut's politics align with your own anit-Americanism, he should be treated as above the law regardless of which country he is in.
Legality of what? The EAW?
Sorry this isn't a good case to do that.
Putting aside the fact its Assange and looking at the case law... the facts aren't in his favor...
First, he is accused of rape. Regardless of what one thinks of the facts, its what the Swedish prosecutor thinks. And if Sweden believes that there is enough evidence to support going to trial, then that is all that matters.
Second. Swedish Law is structured such that the individual is brought in for 'questioning' where after the interview period, they are formally charged. Such that unless Assange is present in Sweden, they can not bring formal charges.
Third. The EAW has something like 32 specific charges where the laws of one country do not have to be equivalent to those in a different country. One of those laws is the charge of rape. Meaning that if Sweden believes Assange committed rape under their definition of rape, then the EAW should be honored regardless of how the UK defines rape. Assange's lawyers argued this point and they were defeated on this issue. The EAW is clear on this fact.
So in terms of the letter of the law, the first appeals court got it right.
When looking at the second appeal, the courts then looked beyond the letter and at the spirit of the charges. While Assange isn't being tried in the UK courts, the courts looked at the evidence and ruled that it was credible enough that under Swedish law, it was enough to bring formal charges. Now while I haven't looked at their formal ruling, I believe it not only upheld the first court's ruling but added to it.
So Sorry, this isn't a good case to challenge anything.
IMHO Assange is trying to protect his sorry arse and not some altruistic martyr.
Do you mean Legal Aid?
Legal Aid doesn't come from the taxpayers purse. It's effectively a charity funded by big business and has almost zero input from the public purse. Court costs are only ever funded by tax-payers when the Crown is involved in a matter of extra-judiciary law (such as the special committee investigating Murdoch) and Assanges case doesn't qualify.
Stop minimising his offences and conviction; he was convicted on 25 counts (for very serious offences) and, as we can now see, the sentence was a gross mistake. As I've indicated previously, early offences are good predictors of later ones, and Assange is a lesson here; his current round includes fencing stolen secrets, including his (to understate the case) egregious edit of the helicopter incident. He should have been extradited for his hostile acts on Pentagon hardware, and there were others: "Police also found details of hundreds of stolen passwords for networks around the world along with the dates when he obtained them. Among them were passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon." Assange also hacked computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities, after which he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution"
Me suggesting? I have made no suggestion, but I can tell you that there is no visible legal, technical reason why his extradition ought not to go ahead, though I am sure that he will continue to hold open air weepy sessions to curry favour and replace his diminishing band of supporters. Moreover, attempting to read what is going on in the black box is for people who believe in Cracker, fairies at the bottom of the garden and mediums. You cannot. No one can. It is impossible. The nearest that you can get to this is in reading behavioural data in meat space and inferring by analogy. That's forensic speak (see my earlier comments on John Locke for a clarification on that term, should you need it).
Furthermore his magnum opus would appear to consist of various ways of stealing information (for which he was convicted) and then fencing it (ostensibly when taken by Bradley Manning, whom he has left to the wolves, excluding a minimal defence fund contribution) whilst claiming ownership; the proposed pay wall, the 'auto' biography (released because, in spite of his cold feet, he had signed an agreement and had *taken* an advance fee from the publisher which they were entitled to recoup). Indeed, when the Guardian started publishing some of the data his hissy fit was of massive proportions, because he believed them to be 'his'; oh no Jules, the data belong to the original owners, not to you. In addition the Americans should have extradited him at the time of his first offence, since this was a substantial criminal offence (a predictor) committed on their servers by a man who can certainly not claim that he was hunting UFO data.
To understand more about him you might want to read the things that he written and said, including his tart comments about the expendability of informants in Afghanistan, who presumably may eat cake.
Bradley Manning? A few crumbs from the Assange table to help defray some legal costs, that's all. Plausible deniability, as with international power politics/real politik, the very sort of thing he supposedly opposes. One cannot make a Wikiomelette without cracking informant heads. After all, did Jules himself not say of the Afghan informants that they chose? Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351927/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-new-book-Afghan-informants-deserve-killed.html
"Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.
The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'"
Well that's a good predictor where Manning's health is concerned.
Launching Gumby attack level one in 5... 4... 3........
Sorry to disappoint you...
But this move by Assange was so predictable...
It's his right under the law. Of course he will lose the appeal. Also note the comment from Wikileaks itself ... They are distancing themselves from him. I wonder why... :-)
Were this politically motivated, they would be screaming bloody murder too.
IMHO the US Govt. wants Assange back in Australia. Regardless of the outcome of this case, Assange is going to end up back in Australia. You think the US is his only problem? You're sorely mistaken... ;-)
Again IMHO, Assange would be better off in a Swedish jail for a couple of years. But fortunately for us, he's not that smart. Pop corn anyone?
Democratic House of Lords?
This must have been inserted as a joke. Or it was written by an American.
Every democracy loving Brit knows full well that the House of Lords is completely *unelected*.
The measures to form the Supreme Court were also taken many years before the end of the Labour administration.
Ok, first off - The Law Lords are not the same as the house of Lords, some (or all, I can't remember) of them may sit in the house of lords, but thier main job is as most senior judges in the country. They get there by merit.
Appointed isn't necessarily bad - no parties whips to cow-tow to means more open debate less towing the party line. There is also an appointments committee that shares out the political appointments.
Furthermore - you get uni professors, senior businessmen, etc. in the house of lords, this is a good thing, they would be there if they had to run an election campaign as they're about to retire.
Bored of this - he should just go and face the music.
" the House of Lords, the UK’s partially-elected upper house, "
That's news to me.
Re: " the House of Lords, the UK’s partially-elected upper house, "
"That's news to me."
ISTR that, during Liebour's faux reformation of the upper chamber, some members of the House of Lords were quite literally elected by their peers! That really does take the Toni Bler biscuit.
To those saying he should just be sent to face his accuser. I'd have no problem with this if he were actually formally charged with anything. To the best of my understanding, it isnt even legal due to the nature of the UK's extradition treaty with sweden for them to send him there forcefully. Extradition *requires* the accused to be formally charged with a crime. The reality is Julian has yet to be charged with any sort of crime and the UK is still extraditing him. How is that even possible?
"The reality is Julian has yet to be charged with any sort of crime and the UK is still extraditing him. How is that even possible?"
Umm... because its actually a US extradition treaty. For which no proof of anything is required. Another wonderful example of British justice.
something to do with the Home Secretary coming out with that crap about the cat at the Tory conference.
RE: @AC 23:03
You really are one of the less intelligent Wikisuckers, aren't you? This is an European warrant from Sweden - nothing to do (yet) with the US. Please do try and at least keep up with the basics before frothing.
Wrong! He is not YET accused of anything, he is being extradited to assist in the investigation of the crime he is suspected of committing. A$$ange failed to co-operate with the Swedes, hence the request for his extradition to face questioning.
Well he is accused of plenty, my point is there is no charge or warrant for his arrest in the first place. Something which is a requirement of all extraditions from the UK to sweden. If hes worth extraditing then at the least he is worth formally charging.
@AC do you bother reading the news?
Clearly the simplest things are beyond your comprehension.
As stated by the lawyer representing the Swedish government, under Swedish law, Assange was to be interviewed and then formally charged. While his non Swedish lawyers are trying to make it sound like he's being extradited by Sweden for an interview... The reality s quite different. This is why the first judge ruled that on the surface... The EAW is valid.
Poof. There goes your defense of Assange in a heart beat.
Unlike OJ who wore a glove... Had Assange wore a love glove, he wouldnt be here now would he?
@ Matt Bryant
Actually it goes beyond what you said.
The Swedish Prosecutor and the lawyer who represented Sweden in the first Appeals hearing did in fact say that they intend to bring charges once Assange is returned to Sweden.
Under Swedish law, they can't charge him without following their due process.
I am not necessarily defending assange. It actually is a concern to me and it reaches beyond just him. Assange, or anyone facing extradition for that matter, *deserves* a warrant before being whisked away to some foreign country that may or may not actually charge him for anything given the current political atmosphere surrounding him.
I hope I am wrong, but if Assange is extradited he could very well be disappeared from public contact. And for those who cheer such an outcome, I hope it is worth it to you down the road.
Re: @AC 23:03
' "The reality is Julian has yet to be charged with any sort of crime and the UK is still extraditing him. How is that even possible?"
Umm... because its actually a US extradition treaty. For which no proof of anything is required. Another wonderful example of British justice. '
Both wrong; it is a European arrest warrant; he cannot be extradited from Sweden without prior UK approval, he will be charged under Swedish law, as he would have been had he not left the country; his Swedish lawyer knew that the police wanted to interview him prior to charging him (and magically found text from them whilst testifying in a UK court, having prior denied contact (tsk, not very professional), so this is well witnessed); by bizarre coincidence (?), not long after the police informed his Swedish lawyer of their requirement, Assange disappeared and then reappeared as if by magic in the UK. (It's like playing whack-a-mole). The appropriate Swedish regulatory/professional body want a chat with his (now it would seem former) lawyer. So Assange would have been charged had he not flown the jurisdiction, and the arrest warrant is a European arrest warrant that has nothing to do with the US, which is sitting patiently, sharpening a scythe, digging up the dirt.. ..waiting for the day Jules is discharged, under whatever circumstances.
So this is the best the 'mighty' USA can do?
Years ago I proposed something along the lines of what Wikileaks has done.
The only way, I said, to stop action in Iraq would be to publish the home addresses of the families of every single serviceman.
Immediately various friends (some in the armed forces) jumped up and swore that anyone who attempted that would 'disappear before it hit the public!'. I expressed doubt on that, for various reasons including the massive incompetence of....pretty much any government on earth that you care to name.
And here we are and..... this is the best the 'might(y)' USA can do?
We are living in a farce (that is getting warmer, don't forget whats actually important out there folks).
Being extradited to Sweden for rape charges is not being sent to the U.S.
If we're gonna publish names and addresses of soldiers, then lets publish the names and addresses of those who disclose this information and place a bounty on their heads for endangering the lives of innocent people. As a soldier you do what you are ordered to do. I'm not currently a soldier but I'd have no qualms with whacking anyone who endangers U.S. soldiers. What goes around, comes around.
"As a soldier you do what you are ordered to do. I'm not currently a soldier but I'd have no qualms with whacking anyone who endangers U.S. soldiers."
So what's happening in Syria at the moment is all perfectly ok with you then?
"As a soldier you do what you are ordered to do." - ??
That defence didn't work so well for the Nazis post-WW2, did it? (lookup Nuremberg: " "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes"). Also hasn't worked for a number of genocidal maniacs since then...
"....case as a matter of general public importance...." Shirley, that should be a case of unbelievable self-importance generating an erroneous belief that it is a matter of general public importance?
Hopefully, A$$ange's latest attempt to avoid justice will fail at the first hurdle, and he will stop wasting taxpayers' money and the courts' time with his nonsensical blathering that it's all Unlce Sam trying to "get him". Yeah, Uncle Sam was in bedrooms in Sweden, hiding all his condoms - not! What's the betting that if he loses he'll try doing a runner?
IF Uncle Sam wanted him , he would be in an holding cell on US soil. No this is not some plot by the US to embarrass him.
Nobody is a lord
lords, queens, kings, popes, economists, banksters all scumbags, all chickenshit punks when the people had enough and learn not to make ranks against a line, and instead go gorilla warfare these miserable fuckers will be the blood in the street.
"The only way, I said, to stop action in Iraq would be to publish the home addresses of the families of every single serviceman."
You have to remember servicemen (and women) are under orders from the politicians you and I elected - taking action against the servicepeople is wrong. Go protect against the politicians if you like.
To the people
To the people that think this is the work of the US government. Why not plant child porn on him. Just the accusation of finding child porn alone would destroy him? Why not plant drugs on him ? Why not get him f\or what the rest of the world calls rape (not for getting to use a condom )/