Assange takes extradition fight to Supreme Court

RE: Correction.

"......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.

Re: Correction.

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.

@PatientOne...

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.