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 …
"Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse"
#1 from the worlds finest search engine.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/sweden/page.do?id=1011247
Nice try.. but next time please try harder.. Please also note how frequently the word 'rendition' appears there and in all the other results you could have found.
""Sweden does not have a (documented) record of torture or human rights abuse"
Oh YES it DOES actually."
All countries do. Likewise, show me a human being who has not broken a law, or a moral code.
Tying ourselves up in PC knots is silly. If Assange had sex with a woman against her wishes, as stated, then he must be prosecuted in the appropriate jurisdiction, the one he (already a convict) so manifestly skipped, as demonstrated in a British court.
At least one expert in extradition had said before today that Assange's legal arguments were not strong enough would fail and so it turned out. There is no indication at all that the extradition will be hijacked by the US and the opinion appears to be that it would be easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than Sweden.
Why would he think he is safer from prosecution in the UK where we have that very one sided Extradition Treaty with the US? It would be far harder for the US to get him out of Sweden than it would be to do it here.
He has not been charged as the Swedes have the decency to want more evidence or to give him the chance to answer the evidence before charging him. They probably want him close to hand should his answers be unsatisfactory, rather than interviewing him over VOIP or in another country.
Assange's lawyer can stir up all he wants and play to the media as much as he likes. Assange dipped his wick and needs to explain to the Swedes that it was consensual. They have a decent judiciary and so there is no case for refusing his extradition. Whether he is guilty is not for the UK courts to decide upon.
"They probably want him close to hand should his answers be unsatisfactory, rather than interviewing him over VOIP or in another country."
It's more than that; the to and fro progress of an interview depends to a substantial extent on non verbal cues of the sort not clearly available using VOIP, which does not cut it where interview techniques are concerned, because it hampers them.
You do realize that the reason Assange went to the UK was to ditch out of Sweden. Lets get real. Assange was facing 'rape' charges in Sweden where what the Swedes would consider 'rape' and what they would do to prosecute wouldn't get prosecuted in the UK or anywhere else for that matter.
I would have to guess that the Swedes didn't care for Assange thumbing his nose at their laws.
He was probably betting on them not pursuing the case because its probably not worth it. (Of course his profile which got him in to their 'beds' is probably the reason why the Swedes are pursuing it.)
To Assange, he wanted Swedish citizenship because then it would afford him and Wikileaks more protection.
If he is found guilty of the charges, he'll be sentenced and upon completion, he'd be put on a plane and sent back to Australia. What the Australians do is also in question. One article talked about Australia considering revoking his passport.
At any time, if the US can put together a case against Assange, you can bet he'll be extradited.
Assange could attempt to fight the extradition, but he's pissed off the same governments that could help him probably wont.
“No indication”, WTF!, that's utter Bullshit. In fact its worse than Bullshit, its very duplicitous. Oh and what's this about “So much paranoia”, that's intentionally derogatory against anyone who dares to question the motives behind this case. (I also note you use a statement of fact about likelihood of extradition to cover your otherwise very derogatory & duplicitous post. Its duplicitous because there is no way you can't see what is being done behind this case, as I intend to show).
I was going to do a post about “What is the next chess move? ... What will America do?” .. but now I'll direct it against your post.
I was going to say, have the US government been waiting until now to suddenly and finally announce formal charges against him in the US?. After all, Sweden have already repeatedly said they would defer to the US. If the US announced charges before he is extradited to Sweden, that puts the UK in a difficult position *publicly* as then the danger of him facing the death penalty is very real and public. (Privately of course they would probably be only to happy to hand him over to the US, after all it helps the UK's “special relationship” with the US).
The thing is if the US government are going to make a move, they will wait until he is in Sweden as Sweden have already repeatedly shown their willingness to hand him over to the US.
Also from the last 2 lines of the BBC article, "In response to the suggested risk of extradition to the US and a possible death penalty, Clare Montgomery QC said Sweden provided "protection against that sort of threat and violation" taking place."
However, Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities said the European Court of Human Rights would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial. That wording is extremely careful to leave open the prospect of completely ok for him to stand trial, as long as its not seen as “inhuman or degrading treatment or unfair”.
These legal people pick their words extremely carefully as its their job to be exact in what they say. So Sweden are once again leaving it open ended to hand him over. We all know the US want him, its only matter of them finding a way to charge him and make it stick. Some of the US government have even called for his death FFS, so its bloody obvious (to everyone) the US want him to be punished.
I was going to go with a Big Brother icon for the UK, US and Swedish governments, as they would all be only to happy to work together (after all, the UK has its “special relationship” with the US to consider and Sweden wants its own “special relationship” with the US … which basically means bend over and do what the US wants and then be given some access to US money in return ... by the way governments, we have some very old words used for the oldest profession for that kind of behaviour!).
No matter how far the governments take their very public flogging of him, it won't stop others standing up to the governments as well. We are increasingly seeing that around the world now. People have had enough of the arrogant greedy Narcissistic lying bastards in government. So whatever the governments do to Assange and/or Wikileaks, they are not going to stop the people standing against them. All these moves to punish will do, is increase public anger against the governments.
The more people the governments imprison (and even some governments kill!), then the more people will stand up and argue back at their governments. Whatever the governments do to Assange, its not going to stop the pressure on them. The pressure is also the only way to get some fairness from the Narcissistic people in governments, because as they don't have empathy, they need to be forced to think of the people. Wikileaks has highlighted how the governments lie to the people. Don't forget that.
"After all, Sweden have already repeatedly said they would defer to the US. If the US announced charges before he is extradited to Sweden, that puts the UK in a difficult position *publicly* as then the danger of him facing the death penalty is very real and public. (Privately of course they would probably be only to happy to hand him over to the US, after all it helps the UK's “special relationship” with the US).
The thing is if the US government are going to make a move, they will wait until he is in Sweden as Sweden have already repeatedly shown their willingness to hand him over to the US."
You have contradicted yourself and more. Not only can they NOT extradite him from Sweden without UK permission, but Swedes have already said they will defer their case - not hand him over - if the UK are FIRST approached by the US.
So you have just emitted a long, smelly BS rant.
There's a lot of political stupidity in the USA, even suggestions Assange should face the death penalty. And I'm not sure |I could rely on a British court, faced with an extradition request from the USA. Sweden, on the other hand, doesn't have that "Special Relationship" fetish, and this case has put them on notice to be very careful about the Americans and what they might request.
Is it a cunning plan? Who knows.
There may be calls from some of the US' nuttier politicians, but the only way that someone would be extradited from the EU (UK included) to America is with assurances that there would be no death penalty sought. There would also likely be a no "hard time" assurance sought.
So, what's to stop America just extraditing him and then executing him anyway? Well, nothing but loss of any cooperation in future with the EU, serious loss of credibility around the world and a serious chilling of diplomatic relationships. Remember that they need us, not as much as we need them, but they really need us.
As for the Guantanamo allegations - The presendent himself is closing it down, noone new is going there, he would personally make his own life harder if he allowed anyone else to go there.
This really is a remarkably lame decision and brings extradition into disrepute.
Assange was basically charged with something akin to telling a lie to get a woman into bed. Well, I'm sorry to inform the Swedish, but this is hardly a serious offence and just makes their womenfolk seem stupid. Most women in this country have worked out long ago that men tell lies to get sex........get over it. If you're really that stupid to have sex with a man because he says he loves you a few hours after you've met, you really are stupid.
The Swedish prosecutor has changed her mind continually and been slated by a well respected member of the Swedish judiciary......retired. What he did might be morally wrong and might or might not be against Swedish law. However, it certainly isn't worth an extradition which should be for serious matters only and whilst a 'sex offence', it doesn't really rate against things normally considered sex offences in this country. Also, as the extradition is for questioning only and no charges have been brought....................
Judge is simply getting rid of something awkward rather than deal with it appropriately.
P.S.
For people who think Sweden is a paragon of moral correctness and somehow 'enlightened' compared to this country, you should remember they forcibly steralised various categories of people (including mentally disabled etc.) into the 80s before stopping. Now, if you want a crime, perhaps they should go back over that one............
>>"Assange was basically charged with something akin to telling a lie to get a woman into bed."
Surely the issue of consent if pretty crucial?
There's quite a difference between telling a lie about how much you earn (or even how much you care about someone), and [allegedly] telling a lie about what kind of sex you're going to engage when a person's made it clear what their limits of their consent are.
>>"Well, I'm sorry to inform the Swedish, but this is hardly a serious offence and just makes their womenfolk seem stupid. "
I'm sorry to inform you, but I'm not sure 'the Swedish" will care much about your opinion, even if any of them actually hear of it.
"Points 1, 4 and 6 relate essentially to the same issue – disclosure of information inappropriately and publicly in an unfair way . It has also been suggested that the complainant’s lawyer in Sweden has made inappropriate remarks.
Miss Montgomery suggested that any comments from the Swedish Prime Minister may have been a response to comments made publicly on the steps of this court by the defence team here. I have heard no evidence that the defence team has publicly commented to the media, and so cannot say that that has happened ..
It is not possible for me to measure the impact of any such disclosures in this case .. I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden"
www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/jud-authority-sweden-v-assange
"...and so cannot say that that has happened.
Certainly the conventional wisdom is that prosecutors, lawyers and politicians are best advised not to comment on a case until it is over. Sometimes public comment damages the cause more than it helps. However the reality is that such comments do occur. In this country police officers do comment on an investigation. Confidential information is sometimes leaked. Politicians may speak inappropriately. Defence lawyers do sometimes brief the press. It is not possible for me to measure the impact of any such disclosures in this case.
However I think it highly unlikely that any comment has been made with a view to interfere with the course of public justice. It is more likely that comments have been made with the intention of protecting reputations, including the reputation of the Swedish justice system.
Moreover, I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden. I know that there will be three lay judges in any trial in Sweden. Despite the suggestion that they are selected because of their political allegiances, there is simply no reason to believe that they will not deal with the case on the evidence before them. Any earlier impression of the merits of the case, whether favourable or unfavourable to this defendant, will play no part. In this jurisdiction we have ample experience of defendants who have been vilified and yet acquitted. The jury system (and if I may say so the summary system) is robust. The defence has referred me to one case (McCann, Cullen and Shanahan) where a politician made comments that were later considered by the Court of Appeal to have had such a potentially prejudicial effect that the verdict of guilty recorded in the trial had to be overturned. However that was in relation to a comment about the right to silence made during final speeches of a trial where the defendants elected not to give evidence at the trial itself.
I am not in a position to say whether any comments made by the police and a prosecutor are unlawful in Sweden. One of the witnesses said they were unfair but not illegal. They would not necessarily be illegal here. The position may be different once a prosecution has actually commenced, as opposed to during the investigation."
Seriously?
Look, I hate to break it to you but Assange had been hyping his shite all over the place in an effort to raise money and his profile.
He recently admitted that his Smoking Gun against a certain US Bank was a bunch of documents that he couldn't make sense of.
They called his bluff.
"The fact of the matter is Julian Assange didn't do anything morally wrong."
The mind boggles; he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom. Swedish culture includes considerable attention to sexual hygiene, it being that terminal STDs are disliked there, even though in the UK attitudes differ.
Having sex with someone under these circumstances is rape in Swedish law, and actually I'd find it difficult to see it as other than rape, irrrespective of jurisdiction. The Swedes are not alone in their stipulations. In an odd way this case is in agreement with their attitudes:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,713955,00.html
As I say, the Brits are very bad at sexual hygiene and from that perspective alone I am unsurprised at the responses here. Given that most if not all of them are from men I am even less so.
'Nothing morally wrong'? How sad. Perhaps you like him feel that the women (wrongly) got themselves into a 'tizzy':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035
"he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you
""he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you"
I suggest that you pay attention to his spoken word on Radio 4.
For that you fail.
""he had sex with a woman who stipulated that he could only do so if he wore a condom. He did not wear a condom."
Funny how you can say that as though it's a fact without him even being to court yet isn't it?
People are not proven guilty without first being to court scorchio so for that i will fail you"
"He said he believed the most probable explanation for the allegations was that two women "found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases".
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm )
It was a "ridiculous thing to go to the police about," he added. "
Oh ridiculous indeed:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,713955,00.html
And he "feels at peace", the convict with 25 convictions in one go to his name, one of which was for breaking into the very police computers containing details of the investigation into his criminal offences. Very credible. A barometer of morality, a Paris metre of respectability, a most trustworthy and reliable man. When he says a woman was 'in a tizzy' and that it was "a ridiculous thing to go to the police about" he is absolutely right. Just as the judge in Australia convicted him wrongly, Assange saying
“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.”
Oh irony:
"I've been abusive to women before in my life and I felt I was done a misjustice [sic] in dealing with this situation that I got convicted for"
Google that.
Oh, and the reason Jules avoids any semblance of direct contact with his 'clients? The reason why he's putting up such a fight now? This:
"If there is any repetition of this behaviour, I would have thought your chances of avoiding a jail sentence would be very slim."
( http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105 )
Julian does not want to do time, more than anything in the world. He came close to it and what drives his behaviour now are the judge's words. He thought he'd got it sewn right up with Wikileaks; nuffink to do with me guv, it's just bits and bytes, information packets on the innernet. But oh those little packets of semen, how controversial they have become, eh? The interesting thing is that, whereas data packets can be transmitted through a proxy using the TOR onion skin (hah!) model, semen cannot, and the DNA evidence is compelling.
"... and maybe about Sweden's propensity of being fondled by the US administration.
Should be of interest
"
Nothing new to know on the US Administration - Sweden. We already know thanks to ThePirateBay.... "love is in the air"...
Sex life in Sweden can be fun it seems, allegations a few weeks after an interaction with no proof and your word against the other can get you to jail...now I understand that Swedish guy whom I met who said he wouldn't date in Sweden as it was too dangerous....
If I were swedish I might consider leaving the country for good.
>>"Nothing new to know on the US Administration - Sweden. We already know thanks to ThePirateBay.... "love is in the air"..."
So why was Julian being lauded as being some kind of fucking genius for trying to get registered as a journalist in Sweden then?
Had he not heard about the Pirate Bay stuff proving Sweden was Uncle Sam's lapdog?
>>"If I were swedish I might consider leaving the country for good."
If I were Swedish, I might think you were making the right decision.
This is a disgusting ruling, I don't care how many boxes were ticked the spirit of the law should be considered here: he's committed no offence (here, and at worst a technical one in Sweden) and the any "trial" he would face in Sweden would be an unfair one based on the media hype that surrounded this farce.
My faith in the Law here diminishes once again.
"but there's no reason that a trial has to be "unfair" because of media hype"
To be honest, if I were a Swede, I think I'd be more likely to be influenced against Assange by the media hype coming from him, his lawyers and various supporters than by any other hype.
"It's all a setup", "the only victim in all this is Julian, "he can't get a fair trial in Sweden", etc wouldn't tend to make me sympathetic to him.
It's high time this freedom-monger was brought to book.
The World Police *MUST* ensure that free speech and open government are squashed at all costs.
Look what free speech is doing to the Middle East - tearing it apart!
Only an ordered and controlled society can ensure liberty, anything else is anarchy.
Will no one think of the children?
I totally agree Mr BigYin. Its time people learned war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
This freedom-monger has disrupted our social harmonious slumber for too long, by helping to fill our heads with more troubling questions. Our telescreens into the Internet are filling up with troubling questions about the loyalties of our leaders. Our selfless leaders only have our best interests at heart. You can hear their selfless words every day on our telescreens. How could they, of all people, be self interested liers.
But fear not brothers and sisters, our leaders will prevail and we will get to see their true justice played out for all of us to see and learn from. It won't be long now to wait for our next 2 minute hate broadcast, so we can all join together in our condemnation of this rebellious trouble maker.
Then we can get back to watching Oceania's military victories over, (is it Eurasia or Eastasia we are at war with now, I forget). Anyway our leaders and their "important" friends deserve rich payment for all their troubles and so how dare anyone question our benevolent leaders intentions.
Our benevolent leaders selflessly choose to watch over us, so we can be safe.
I wonder if this is going to be the case for our times or the moment our generation has to tell others.
I also wonder why Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have the balls to demand more from the land they toil in, and we in Europe don't. Oh yeah, money....
So is there anything we, as citizens of whatever places we're from, can do about this? The BBC hasn't exactly put a fair case across. (I refer to John Humphreys interview with Assange 21st Dec on Youtube I think) Also we know the American international position, and the Swedish media has made an impact on public opinion there.
Maybe we in Britain can do something, possibly invite the prosecution here, or do it in Strasbourg or something?
While you're all thinking of things ;) can I ask some questions:
Do we know Obama has 'anti-british sentiment'? (P.S - Obama (I know you can read this) - If you have got a problem with me because I'm British: WTF?! I bought your book! - Come and say it to my face lol)
What about that Private Manning? Whats going on with him right now? I think it's worth keeping an eye on him while Assange is packing his things as we might get an idea of whats in store?
What worries me most is the implications inserted into just what Assange has said, they way he has conducted himself publicly and the documents he has released. This guy tells us he could have studied maths, but he writes about conspiracy theories and networks of individuals keeping sectrets in order to further the creation of wealth and pursuit of power.
His theory (as I understand it) is that the military and industrial interests pervert the course of democracy successfully through greed, corruption and bribery, in order to get certain goals achieved or make a certain amount of money from a situation taking place in the world (I.e War)
The secrets that are passing between these individuals ensure and maintain the process continues and expands into any other industries or public offices where there may be profit or gain in achieving goals.
Assange says conspiracies (the ones perhaps he is referring to when he talks about the political nature of the accusations (which haven't been made. erm) are like nails hammered halfway into a peice of wood. these nails represent actors or players in the conspiracy.
Wrap a long wire around nails and connect the wrapped wire to every other nail in the board. The wire represents the flow of info between the conspirators.
Assange also asserts that people have tried to attack the military industrial complex in the past by removing nails. This doesn't work as there are no shortage of potential nails, and no shortage of potential wire. He goes on to say that things like Wikileaks (mass dumps of sensitive information) are better as they make secret data public. the info going between the nails is worth less. As leaks continue, nails will drop out (info comes from whistleblowers etc) Nails will also lose trust in eachother and give up or consolidate what they have on their own, making them vulnerable.
Sorry to drone on but I think he has a point in a my humble opinion. This stuff is the source of the reason people in Africa are killing eachother and I'm paying for petrol through the nose and paying for young men to die in Afghanistan in a war they don't really agree with either.
Maybe a fresh look at changing this picture might be a good thing!
that if this extradition was for anyone but Assange the vast majority crying foul would not object in the slightest. It appears to me that many are coming at this with a preconceived idea of some underlying conspiracy and have totally bought into the (now discredited) defence arguments without considering the prosecutions position.
The facts are:
Assange deliberately avoided being interviewed about this is Sweden
Sweden are within their rights to request his extradition to face questioning.
The offences do have a legal equivalent in the UK.
Look,
I realize I'm just a techie and my undergrad courses were all in Engineering and Science.
But I expect that those who post here have at least some level of University eduction.
If you have been following the case, you have to understand the following:
* Assange skipped out of Sweden before he could be questioned and then charged.
* A EAW was issued.
* Assange turned himself in and appealed the extradition.
Under the law, the burden of proof is on Assange to demonstrate that the EAW itself is flawed. The courts start with the presumption that the EAW is a lawful request.
Assange through his lawyers asserted a couple of key arguments:
* The person who issued the EAW didn't have the authority to issue the EAW
* Assange hadn't been charged and that you can't issue an EAW just for questioning.
* Assuming the accusations to be true, what he is accused of is not a crime in the UK
Were the defense able to win one of those arguments, Assange would probably not be extradited.
In the court case, the Swedish prosecution team refuted these claims by the following:
* Affirmed that the person who issued the EAW has the authority to issue an EAW.
* RAPE is one of the thirty odd crimes where you don't use the local standards of law.
* The EAW was issued for the intent of prosecuting Assange upon his return to Sweden.
(That this is just so that they can 'question him' is hogwash.)
The point is that for every issue raised by the defense, the prosecution was able to demonstrate their case.
Point by Point, anything raised by the defense was effectively countered. Including getting the Swedish counsel for Assange to admit that statements he made under oath were incorrect.
Assange's defense team did not make a strong enough argument to halt the extradition.
If you read the skeletons for both sides, you would understand this.
I am shocked that in spite of all of the evidence now in the public eye that people still ignore the basic facts argued in court.
Assange will go back, be interviewed and then charged. (Unless he can prove his innocence.)
"You do not need to actually be charged with anything to be extradited from the UK. The precedent has now been set. Mere suspicion is enough, which the Yanks will certainly take advantage of in the future."
This is an entirely separate matter, that is, it is an EAW, not an AAW. Can't you read?
Out to the pub, hence the icon.
Since the extradition is for "questioning" presumably once that questioning is over, Julian can come back to the UK, regardless of the outcome.
If the Swedes then wish to lodge charges, then they must re-apply for extradition, otherwise they will be seen as extraditing for questioning but then slapping a charge on him.
What I mean is, he is extradited for questioning ONLY, when that ends, back he comes.
Hopefully.
"He is being questioned on the assumption that there is a reasonable chance that after that he will be charged."....By the Americans.
If the Swedes manage to get him extradited on suspicion then it's just a formality for them to extradite him to America on the same grounds.
I believe that the second he arrives in Sweden, America will lodge a request for extradition. The Swedes will then go through the motions of questioning him, announce all investigations dropped and promptly deliver him to the awaiting Leer jet.
"If the Swedes manage to get him extradited on suspicion then it's just a formality for them to extradite him to America on the same grounds."
Perhaps IQs dropped a little; as much as your wishful thinking might have it, the Swedes cannot allow extradition to the US without UK say so. They are extraditing on a specific set of grounds that do not include this. In addition do note that the UK caveat on not extraditing for capital offences is also a Swedish one, though they have said they will forgo extradition to Sweden if the US approaches the UK. However, the US have not yet made a case and are still investigating the matter. A few years down the road it might be possible for the US to charge him, by which time he may be released. Expect to see the world dotted with FBI agents, waiting for Assange to fall into their open arms, but not for a long while yet. Verstanden?
Let's go and look out of the round window...
If this was a fair extradition case then the judge would have asked for asertions that the swedish authorities would not extradite him to the US. This is simply a travesty of justice and he has not got a cat in hells chance of staying alive once extradited to the US. One saving grace is that America is soon to be committed to the history books as a failed state and like Rome will come crashing down taking the oligarcy of the US and other countries with it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
