Feeds

back to article Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sexual harassment and rape, the UK Supreme Court ruled in the last hour. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said that Assange's "request for extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is lawfully …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Thumb Down

The law is an ass.

I'd rather the European arrest warrant system 'collapsed' & they re-wrote it, than the UK extradite a man who has had no charges laid against him and has been under house arrest for 539 days and is in the process of one of the most convoluted state sponsored stitch-ups in history.

I haven't read the full judgement yet ( http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/latest-judgments.html ) but maybe there is still chance to appeal & restore some sanity before the US authorities start to get too excited.

28
22
Anonymous Coward

@Occams_Cat

Well just so you know, there's plenty of people besides you who think that sex crimes against women are trivial and should just be ignored.

7
23
Anonymous Coward

Err...

As you should well know by now, he can't have charges made against him, until he's been interviewed by the Sweedish police, that's how their system works. The fact that they are bothering to try to extradite him basically says that they're pretty sure they're going to charge him, but the have to follow process. You do want them to follow established process, don't you?

10
8
Silver badge

Re: @Occams_Cat

> sex crimes against women are trivial and should just be ignored

It could be that all the coverage over here has been completely wrong, but from the coverage that I've seen in the UK media it seem that the two women both had consensual sex with this guy, then found out about each other and decided that while they consent to have sex with him when they thought they had him to themselves, they would retrospectively change their mind when they found out he was a two timing SOB.

Now if this is the case then it is the women and not Occam_Cat who are trying to trivialize sex crimes against women.

I'm all for nailing rapist to trees, but how can it be right for someone to consent to do something one day. Then a week later to change their mind and attempt to have the guy arrested.

Now it could well be that all the coverage we've seen has been totally misleading. I don't know. But that is the story that has been reported here and other places.

15
6

RE: the law is an ass

So it is a state sponsored stitch up huh? How can you be so sure it is?

Remove your tin foil hat for a second and consider that is why he needs to be extradited, the facts need to come out and guilt or innocence proven.

It is not up to us to just assume "oh he must be getting framed" because we have seen too many spy/conspiracy movies.

4
7
Silver badge

Re: @Occams_Cat

I'm all for nailing rapist to trees, but how can it be right for someone to consent to do something one day. Then a week later to change their mind and attempt to have the guy arrested.

IIRC the law over there says that consent can be conditional. As a better example, if a woman says "Yes if you use a condom" and you then continue without bothering to wear anything, she's not actually consented to that. As I recall from the original complaint, this was in fact the complaint.

It's an odd system, to say the least, but it does seem to make logical sense. I suspect it's very open to abuse, but who am I to judge the laws of another state?

Now if this is the case then it is the women and not Occam_Cat who are trying to trivialize sex crimes against women

I'd say if anything, it was the state and not the women ;)

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Occams_Cat

@Dazed and confused:

What I've heard reported is that the women consented to sex with a condom. Assange is alleged to have used a condom, so they didn't consent to the sex they had. In Sweeden, this is considered rape.

I have never heard reported what you have and wonder where you've heard it reported?

2
2
Holmes

Re: RE: the law is an ass

Would it not have been cheaper and quicker for a few swedish plods to come to the UK to interview him?????

I think Assange's big fear is that once he gets to sweeden he will be then extradited to the amerikan reich.

Meanwhile Abu Qatada cannot be extradited to Jordan in case he is tortured.

6
4

>>"I'd rather the European arrest warrant system 'collapsed' & they re-wrote it, than the UK extradite a man who has had no charges laid against him..."

Seems he left the country while (at least according to the Swedish authorities) he was not only still under investigation, but while they were trying to arrange an interview.

Would you have preferred it if they'd kept him locked up until finally making up their minds once and for all whether to charge him with anything or not?

>>"and is in the process of one of the most convoluted state sponsored stitch-ups in history."

Many of the conspiracy theories certainly do seem to be pretty convoluted.

Convoluted enough to pretty much fail the 'sensible plan' test of seeing how non-ridiculous they would sound at the planning stage.

The CIA (or whoever) can supposedly get all manner of sleeper agents to make accusations and get tame prosecutors to investigate cases, so in the conspiracy version of reality, they supposedly choose to have two less-then-completely-convincing agents to make allegations at a time and place where they won't automatically go straight to the desk of a tame prosecutor.

Then let the target leave the country for destinations unknown where extradition, if possible, could take a long time.

3
3

@Dazed and confused

>>"It could be that all the coverage over here has been completely wrong, but from the coverage that I've seen in the UK media it seem that the two women both had consensual sex with this guy, then found out about each other and decided that while they consent to have sex with him when they thought they had him to themselves, they would retrospectively change their mind when they found out he was a two timing SOB"

>>"Now it could well be that all the coverage we've seen has been totally misleading. I don't know. But that is the story that has been reported here and other places."

The claims I've seen appear to be that activities which started off consensual then got non-consensual.

That seems to have been reported in many places, including here, so I'd wonder just what you have been reading.

3
1
Stop

Re: Err...

He offered to take the interview in the UK.

The Swedes declined.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: @Occams_Cat

'Well just so you know, there's plenty of people besides you who think that sex crimes against women are trivial and should just be ignored.'

@AC.

I don't think the posting you're referring to stated that sex crimes were trivial. Equally, he never said they should be ignored. Making up stuff doesn't improve the validity of your argument.

4
2

Re: RE: the law is an ass

>>"Would it not have been cheaper and quicker for a few swedish plods to come to the UK to interview him?????"

Maybe they don't want to establish a precedent that they have to go anywhere else to question someone who (they claim) left while under investigation and being sought for interview.

On the other hand, if the whole thing was, as some people say, a big stitch-up for someone 'they' considered Really Important, what would have stopped the Swedes doing just what you say (whether that involved bending their rules/procedures or not) and then saying "Yes, we're charging him, so extradite him now?"?

>>"I think Assange's big fear is that once he gets to sweeden he will be then extradited to the amerikan reich."

And he seriously thought that the UK would be a better place to stay in that regard?

4
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Occams_Cat

"The law is an ass......" But I bet you'd be singing its praises if it had let your Patron Saint Julian walk.

"....state sponsored stitch-ups in history...." Yeah, 'cos the CIA were there in the bedroom, whispering in his ear that all Swedish babes love to be woken up with some unprotected sex, right?

3
5
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Re: Err...

"He offered to take the interview in the UK......"

If they had accepted the interview being done in the UK they would then be outside their juristiction and would be unable to arrest and charge him. Which is likley the reason A$$nut scarpered to the UK in the first place. Besides the simple fact that the Law gets to say where the interview should happen, not the suspect.

4
5
Bronze badge
FAIL

You are misrepresenting the truth; the US authorities have nothing to do with it; under the terms of the extradition warrant the Swedes must ask the UK if the US want to extradite the thing from Sweden; the UK have made it clear that their process would be even longer and more tortuous than the current one has been.

As to the man himself, he ran by strange coincidence very soon after his Swedish counsel found out from the Swedish police (error of judgement by them) that they wanted to interview and charge him. Not only has the counsel been referred to his own professional organisation, but he also said something in a UK court that was not true, claiming he'd not heard from the police... ...only to consult his mobile phone and retract that claim. Assange's legal teams seem to be working more on how they believe the world should be rather than how it, de jure and de facto, is. That is to say, running from a police force in Europe to another part of Europe, when the police force in question intends to press charges, activates the European arrest warrant. If the deed of running from Sweden is anything to go by, my opinion is that the man is not innocent.

A similar process would take place in the various UK jurisdictions, as Andy Coulson today found out when he was arrested by Scottish police, who work under an entirely different legal system to the English one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18262740

HTH. HAND.

2
4
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: @Occams_Cat

"I'm all for nailing rapist to trees"

This alone demonstrates your ignorance of jurisprudence and the small matter of not harming the guilty subject, just in case evidence is later found that shows them to be innocent. The recent case of a man jailed 10 years ago and then released last month demonstrates my point completely and the vacuity of yours also.

In addition to this, the data do not support your contentions. Scandinavian countries (as is the case in Germany: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227 ), place a high premium on sexual health; having sex with someone without protection against their will is considered rape in Sweden, as is 'sex by surprise'. Your attempts to minimise the matter are similar to those emanating from the Assange camp. Granted sexual health in the UK is seen to be unimportant, hence presumably the exceptionally high rate of teenage mothers in the UK and the prevalence of sexual diseases. However, people in other countries feel differently, and this is reflected in their laws; when in Sweden do as the Swedes do, and don't do what they prohibit; if unable to keep your todger under control in Sweden, consult the local laws.

3
5
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: RE: the law is an ass

"Would it not have been cheaper and quicker for a few swedish plods to come to the UK to interview him?????"

No; they intend to charge him, not merely interview him.

2
3
Devil

Re: RE: the law is an ass

>>And he seriously thought that the UK would be a better place to stay in that regard?

Yes, the UK and AUS have reciprocal agreements which means that any AUS citizen in the UK cannot be extradited to the US, i.e. Assange (as an Australian citizen) cannot be extradited to the US while in the UK.

Once extradited to Sweden several US/Swedish treaties can be used to extradite him to the US, which (I predict) will happen.

If someone is accused of a crime, they should be able to answer the charges, while he may be charged with sex crimes (regardless of any wrongdoing), it's very unlikely he will be found guilty, apart from the documented collusion between the two accusers and the evidence that both were boasting with regards to bedding him, he has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that's going to be very difficult (or impossible) to prove.

Don't get me wrong, he could well have forced himself on one woman and lied about using a condom with another, and if he did that would make him a bad person deserving of punishment, but the law is the law, it requires evidence and that means if there's no evidence then the guilty and the innocent will not be punished.

This case is unique in that cases (such as this) where evidence is lacking normally would not be pursued, and it's the first time in history that these extradition laws are being used for these crimes.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: RE: the law is an ass

Since SÄPO have been filmed doing "renditions" from Bromma airport to the USA, he has a good reason to fear.

"Just because you are paranoid, does not mean someone is not out to get you"

2
3

Re: RE: the law is an ass

"Once extradited to Sweden several US/Swedish treaties can be used to extradite him to the US, which (I predict) will happen."

IF the UK consent to it, yes. As it is, Swedish authorities have publically stated that FIRST the US need to ask for it, then it needs to be evaluated against Swedish law, and THEN the UK must say yes.

So if both Sweden and the UK agree - and the US actually ask - then yes, he can be legally extradited to the Amurricans. But it ain't as simple as far, far too many people seem to think.

3
3

Re: RE: the law is an ass

Yes - and boy did THAT turn into a medial shitstorm.

Now you suggest they are going to break the law again, but this time in FULL VIEW of the press? Not in the dead of night at a tiny airport but smack bang in the middle of Stockholm with every blogger and journalist there is out for blood?

Oh, yes. Best conspiracy EVER, this.

2
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: RE: the law is an ass

"Once extradited to Sweden several US/Swedish treaties can be used to extradite him to the US, which (I predict) will happen."

You predict wrongly; under the terms of the EAW they must first refer the case to the UK.

Miserable failure of the lowest rank.

2
3
Bronze badge
Alert

C'mon. The extradition order was a year and a half ago.

Do you doubt that if he was anyone else he would have been extradited long ago? Do you???

Assange has money and influence and that has allowed him to evade the system while he lives in a mansion and languishes in luxury. Look, if he was truly innocent, wouldn't he just go Sweden prove his innocence, and it over with? But the more he tries to evade the system, the more guilty he makes himself look.

Of course, to the "tinfoil hat" Assange fanbois, none of this matters, does it?

3
3
Silver badge

@Dazed and Confused

Right, that matches my read. But that makes the law in the country requesting the extradition an ass, not UK law. No need for UK law to collapse because another country bolluxed up theirs. Also, Assange knew the law there when he did, as he was a citizen. He is therefore responsible to it. He's the one who has kept putting it off for over a year. Given he claims to be 'speaking truth to power' at Wikileaks when it's other people's lives at stake, it seems only fair to me that he should go 'speak truth to power' when it is only ability to move about freely at stake. The only thing for certain is that UK law can't sort out injustice from another jurisdiction, particularly one with which it has numerous treaties and obligations.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Err...

> they're pretty sure they're going to charge him,

They clearly said that they won't. They will hand him over to the US.

1
3

Re: Err...

They "clearly said"?

Try this. See if that gets through: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/

0
2
Silver badge

@Ben Tasker

Your recall is accurate as far as it goes. The problem is in that caveat. You are missing the elapsed time between the events, which IIRC is not days or even weeks, but a couple of years. As in the "non-consensual conditional sex" happened years before the complaint was filed. Long enough for Assange to have made a name for himself and be seen as someone from whom you might make a lot of money if you could sue him. From a law enforcement point of view I have a problem with that. Admittedly I'm conflicted on this, because from a schadenfreude point of view, I'm immensely enjoying watching a Progressive get caught up in his own corrupt web. If it weren't for the fact that some other poor and honest schlob can get caught up in the same trap, I say let Assange deal with his comeuppance.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Ben Tasker

I've no idea what the Statute of Limitations (or their equiv anyway) is in Sweden. Given that rape victims can take a very long time before they feel comfortable discussing it, I could kind of understand if it was a long time for this category of crime.

That said, the above is written with rape (as defined by English Law) in mind, rather than the version in use here. It's a lot, lot harder to justify for something like this, but then there's a big cultural difference here. In the UK, we wouldn't view this as rape, but they do there. It's not impossible that the (alleged) victims feel similarly traumatised as those who undergo what we would consider (non-violent) rape. In that case, I could kind of understand the delay.

As you say though, his rise to fame does present an interesting motive for filing a complaint. I'm also not sure any-one of us could adequately defend a claim of this type if it was made years later. The point of course being that it's not down to the accused to disprove, but to the prosecution to prove. Assange on the other hand, seems to be trying very hard not to give the authorities chance to do their side, whilst generating as much spin as possible rather than trying to actually disprove the claims.

I'm immensely enjoying watching a Progressive get caught up in his own corrupt web

The only problem is, it's been going on so long that my popcorn keeps going stale! I don't buy the idea that this is some conspiracy by the yanks, but I also think any conviction will always been seen by the Assangelists as 'proof' of corruption in the system. It's as much their reaction as anything else that I find entertaining because most of them don't realise that there's very little correlation between the two things they seem fixed on. I.e. it's quite possible for both of the following to be true

- Assange/Wikileaks provide a valuable service and help force Governments to be honest

- Assange did commit rape under the Swedish definition

I don't entirely buy into the first, and certainly don't believe that's the reason Assange does what he does. The second I don't know about as we've not heard much in the way of non-spin, but will keep an open mind despite the tactics he and his supporters appear to be trying to use to divert attention.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: send to the US?

I keep hearing this theory that it's some bizzare plot to get him to the US. WHY would the US bother with Sweden? All they would have to do is ACCUSE him of something to get extradition from the UK, there would be no REASON to bother with this type of theater twice.

I think some of you need to adjust your foil hats.

2
1

Re: @Ben Tasker

"I've no idea what the Statute of Limitations (or their equiv anyway) is in Sweden."

Between 10 and 15 for rape, depending on severity. See https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K35P1

1
2
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Err...

Proofy woofy? I thought not.

0
1
FAIL

Re: RE: the law is an ass

@windrose

>>IF the UK consent to it, yes. As it is, Swedish authorities have publically stated that FIRST the US need to ask for it, then it needs to be evaluated against Swedish law, and THEN the UK must say yes.

Obviously the US have to ask and Sweden have to verify it's a valid request (they will, it is), and the UK don't have to say "yes", they merely don't have to say "no", and what possible motive would make the UK say no? they are supposidly our "friends" for a start!

@Scorchio!!

>>You predict wrongly; under the terms of the EAW they must first refer the case to the UK.

Nope, they don't "refer" the case, all they do is make a parallel notice.

>>Miserable failure of the lowest rank.

You don't need to sign your posts....... ;-)

1
0
Happy

3..2..1..

Scorchio, Gumby, you here yet?

4
2
Trollface

Re: 3..2..1..

It seems so, some idiot has already downvoted the first commentard who stated the idiocy of the decision... Don't worry, soon we'll have some 10 000 lines rant copying the US state attorney charges and inventions, never mind if all the points have been debunked several times already, Gumby/Scorchio will keep repeating them as gospel.

7
9
Bronze badge

Re: 3..2..1..

"I foos to spond to this obvus troool".

1
2

But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

Essentially his decision, not the legal systems? If he hadn't chosen to fight extradition, but got straight on the first plane to Sweden to answer questions, then he could well have been free and clear 18 months ago - provided he is innocent of course, something I have no opinion on.

You know how it goes, I fought the law and the lawyers won.

21
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

Re-written:

Essentially his decision, not the legal systems? If he hadn't chosen to fight extradition, but got straight on the first plane to Sweden to answer questions, then he would be in Guantanamo Bay now being water boarded!

8
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

He has more protection against extradition to the US being in Sweeden than he does at the moment in the UK. This is because both Sweeden and the UK have to agree to extradite him to the US, rather than just Sweeden or the UK.

But then again, you know that, this comes up every time this case is mentioned.

5
4
Silver badge

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

But then again, you know that, this comes up every time this case is mentioned.

and continually ignored it would seem. After all facts != good_conspiracy_theory.

5
3

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

So it's the ministry of truth mind-fuck, if he's innocent he has nothing to fear.

Also, witches thrown into the village pond float as their witchcraft keeps them afloat, if they drown they are innocent.

4
4

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

>After all facts != good_conspiracy_theory

Yes tinfoil hat, humans never conspire to do bad things when their ass is on the line etc etc etc

Your grandkids won't be forgiving when they learn about the "question politicians and you're insane" era in school. They'll simply see you as the vacuous, craven individual you are.

3
5
Silver badge

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

The US seems to have no problem extraditing people from the UK with flimsy evidence - even with High Court challenges - so the idea that Assange is being extradited to Sweden to make it easier to get him to the US is patiently absurd.

1
2
Stop

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

>>He has more protection against extradition to the US being in Sweeden than he does at the moment in the UK. This is because both Sweeden and the UK have to agree to extradite him to the US, rather than just Sweeden or the UK.

===================

This Is Completely Untrue

===================

Assange cannot be extradited to the US from the UK because he is a Australian citizen, the extradition agreements between the UK and US prevent "commonwealth citizens" being extradited to the US, (Australlia is officially "The Commonwealth of Australia") .

Once in Sweden (note the limited use of the letter "e") the US can extradite him under one of several TIAS extradition agreements, not only *can* the US do this, the legalities would be water tight (several sections of the extradition agreements would cover it), I would be completely astounded if they don't at least try.

4
3
Stop

Re: But aren' t the 539 days of house arrest without being charged

"Once in Sweden (note the limited use of the letter "e") the US can extradite him under one of several TIAS extradition agreements, not only *can* the US do this, the legalities would be water tight"

Except ... if he is extradited to Sweden, it is under an EAW. Which means the UK must consent to him being extradited further.

Endgame.

2
3
Silver badge

@ Windrose

> Except ... if he is extradited to Sweden, it is under an EAW. Which means the UK must consent to him being extradited further.

Except, under current treaty the UK cannot directly extradite him without creating a major diplomatic incident with Australia.

Once he is in Sweden, and when the US asks, the UK can (and will) just bend over and give consent.

The tools arguing that Assange will me more protected in Sweden than he is now, or arguing that the Swedes intend to prosecute him (which they themselves said they won't) have absolutely no clue. The whole extradition thing (under allegations of what is a minor misdemeanor in Sweden, and not even remotely illegal in the UK) is a way to avoid that pesky Commonwealth treaty that prevents the UK from extraditing him directly.

End of.

3
3
FAIL

Re: @ Windrose

"Once he is in Sweden, and when the US asks, the UK can (and will) just bend over and give consent."

First the US has to get a case. Then they have to ask - which they can't do while the current case is worked on - and then they have to get it approved by the Swedish courts. Which, for example, they can't do for anything resembling a political crime - nor, likely, for accepting information from a third party. Swedish laws in this area are solid.

Then the UK has to consent. Which you appear to believe is likely. Fair enough; I shan't rip you of your beliefs, but: if there is a case, Sweden WILL charge him. No-one has said he won't be charged. TRY to understand this. He is questioned FIRST, charged LATER. Right now no-one KNOW whether he'll be charged.*

Nor is rape a "minor misdemeanor" in Sweden. Clue, meet bat.

* It is unlikely he'll be charged. Most of those accused of rape are not, most of those charged are acquitted.

4
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @nexsphil

Your grandkids won't be forgiving when they learn about the "question politicians and you're insane" era in school. They'll simply see you as the vacuous, craven individual you are.

I never said not to question politicians, what I was referring to is that some of the facts of the case are often conveniently ignored/forgotten by Assange's gospel choir (I assume from the pathetically poor insult that you are one of the 'blessed').

humans never conspire to do bad things when their ass is on the line

Of course they do, but you know what? If this really is a conspiracy it's a pathetically bad one. If JA is extradited to Sweden then the EAW ensures that the UK will need to be asked before he can be extradited onto the US (one of his favourite claims from what I've seen). That'll be one long-ass process.

On the other hand, if the US asked the UK it wouldn't take nearly so long (though as we've seen, can still take a while).

It's also hard to miss the fact that JA and his legal team were trying to spout bollocks to win a trial 'by media', a fact that came to light when documents pertinent to the case were leaked.

Whilst you're only paranoid if you're wrong, I strongly suspect this is one of those times. By all means question politicians, but sometimes - just sometimes - they are actually right. But then, why do I bother? If it came out that JA had filmed it on his phone, whilst laughing evilly I suspect you'd still be claiming that it was a conspiracy and that anyone who disagreed was a ' vacuous, craven individual'. You might also wish to observe the following, given that you want to bandy the word craven about

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.

Winston Churchill

4
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: If this really is a conspiracy

I'll go you one further and play the game. See I'm one of dem dar evul 'Mericans the foilhats are afraid are out to get JA. Truth be told, I'd like nothing better than to see him swinging at the end of a rope for all the people he's gotten killed with his ill-conceived plans to bring the free world into conformity with his personal ideology and without benefit of a vote. So here's the deal. I'll assume I want that to actually happen and I'm some hidden spider deep in the spy web able to spin unbelievable plans and make them work. We'll assume I actually managed to manipulate the two morons in Sweden into pressing false charges against him. We'll assume I've got a master plan to subvert any UK objections to extraditing him and running rough shod over Sweden. Would I want to bring him to the US?

Are you FRACKING NUTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I bring him to the US and I've got a London city-sized cadre of ACLU lawyers who've been salivating for decades for a case like this. It's got everything:

- a common man hero of the people trying to bring corrupt government to heal.

- "proof" of said corruption in the leaked documents.

- a conspiracy to have him extradited under false pretenses

- an international consensus that he ought not be tried for a political crime (the fact that he facilitated the dissemination of classified information not withstanding)

- and IF I send him to Gitmo where we can waterboard the SOB, I've handed that cadre of ACLU lawyers the perfect opportunity to get SCOTUS to finally overturn centuries of established law vis-a-vie spying, war, and acts of war.

If I want to do anything to him I want him to die in a high speed car crash in the chunnel, except I hear that's already been done.

Or maybe I could get some operatives to get him drunk, then drive the car off a bridge, and the next day the operatives could claim they dove and dove and dove but couldn't do anything to rescue him. No, that's been done too and they'd never let ME get away with it.

Best then to just rendition him to Saudi Arabia where they know how to deal with his crap.

Of course, if I were going to rendition him to Saudi Arabia, why bother with all the legal wrangling? Far easier to send the black helicopters, snatch him, blow up the building, blame it on Israelis posing as Yemeni terrorists, and deliver him to Saudi Arabia.

Icon for obvious reasons.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: @ Windrose

Look up "temporary surrender". Sweden actually doesn't even have to ask the UK.

There is also solid hints that the US already have a sealed indictment ready to be ripped open as soon as Assange sets foot in Sweden.

Marianne Ny (the prosecutor) also insisted to have him kept in pre-charge, pre-trial /incommunicado/ custody.

All that for an alleged minor offense that doesn't exist in the UK (in the whole world bar Sweden it would be called "lack of manner"), and doesn't carry prison time in Sweden. Only a small fine comparable to what you get for not paying parking.

That seems a bit disproportionate, doesn't it?

2
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.