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 …
This post has been deleted by its author
Turkey is not a member of the EU. Turkey actually ban women who wear headscarves from working in the public sector because they are a secular state.
It's also likely that if your daughter was actually committing a crime (she wasn't) then she would have been arrested there and then.
So yes, it's a fictional scenario, in that the premise is completely made up.
"Turkey is a member of the EU and the EAW model."
Oh no they are not! The European Arrest Warrant applies (by treaty) in EU member states- Turkey is not a member of the EU and does not receive or issue EAWs. If what you said was true, the Duchess of York would already be in a jail in Turkey. having been tried there in absentia.
>>"A cursory examination of the situation reveals that these two women only appeared after being plied by Swedish press and US officials with payments."
So are you saying
a) that people (CIA, media, whoever) went round Julian's various conquests after the event offering women money for laying fake criminal charges (would seem a bit risky, given that only a pretty small fraction of people would seem likely to agree to do something like that)
or
b) that they were already agents sent to seduce Assange and make false allegations, or randomly-chosen women approached and paid in advance to do that (which again seems like a pretty risky thing to attempt given that fairly few people would seem likely to agree to do something like that).
Ah, the American Overlord argument again... leaving us to again pose the question what can the US do with assange in Sweden that they cant do with the UK.
Given the case of the pentagon autistic hacker, I think we all know the answer is nothing, just some of us arent ready to accept it yet.
£100 says... he doesn't spend a single day in jail in Sweden.
Actually, make it £1000 says... he doesn't even get charged in Sweden. The Swedish prosecutor publicly declared that they would not press charges if (read, when) the US asks for him to be extradited. (no he can't just be extradited from the UK. He is an Australian citizen. Once in Sweden all the UK has to do is say "oh OK do with him as you please", but international treaties prevent that while he is in the UK).
I do not normally post anonymously but I do not want to be labelled as an 'Assange Supporter' by the good old USA and yes I am a coward for doing so :(
The is an account of the 'rape' in "The Guardian" here ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden )
"... In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep". ..."
From the accuser's side
Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
It is worth reading through the whole account.
I do not in any way trivialise rape - sex should ALWAYS be fully consensual - but it is by no means clear (even in the account of what happened) that this actually WAS rape.
My opinion is that Julian Assange was very naive to have the relationship at a time in which the USA (and other states) were looking for any possible excuse to arrest him. It does not look (to me) like full blown rape although evidentally he did not listen to her properly. He is undoubtedly not a particularly nice person but as to whether he is a rapist - I doubt it.
This stinks of being a setup. (This is just an opinion) - I suspect that he treated the woman pretty badly and she responded by taking revenge and accusing him of rape. Note that he has not even been CHARGED with anything yet. If this was completely cut and dried then I suspect that I would have been extradited long ago.
This is about getting him into a position where he CAN be extradited to the USA where he can be changed under USA law even though the 'crimes' (in the USA) for which he is accused are not necessarily crimes in other countries. He embarressed the USA and therefore needs to be punished by them.
There is less of a route from Sweden to the US than there is from the UK (let's not forget that the cozy relationship set up during Bush/Blair has far from faded).
I would believed that if the actual charge was rape, but so far we're talking about questioning, and the facts on how it went from a complaint to rape are well documented (with a degree of irony via a leak, but I digress). I can't see a US angle here, the last thing they need is to make this guy important enough for the media to pay attention. Have you noticed just how quiet it has become around Wikileaks? You can almost hear the birds over the ego..
"his is about getting him into a position where he CAN be extradited to the USA where he can be changed under USA law even though the 'crimes' (in the USA) for which he is accused are not necessarily crimes in other countries"
Why? Why go to all this trouble to make everything appear legal - as opposed to just bundling him away in the dead of night - when the final result will be plastered all over the media as ILLEGAL?
He's comitted no crime in the US which Sweden reckognise as such. He's not been asked for BY the US. Sweden can't extradite him without the *UK* agreeing.
So WHY? If this was a setup, wouldn't they at least make sure it APPEARED legal? If he is extradited to Sweden, under this EAW, he *can't automatically be sent to the US* - not legally. At the very least they are stuck with a total mess of a media circus.
So if this is a setup, it's the worst I've ever seen.
>>"If this was completely cut and dried then I suspect that I would have been extradited long ago."
>>"This is about getting him into a position where he CAN be extradited to the USA where he can be changed under USA law..."
So if I understand you correctly, you're claiming that it's much easier to get someone extradited for investigation regarding on a genuine sexual assault allegation with no meaningful government involvement than it is for a big international conspiracy to get someone extradited on a fake sexual assault allegation of equal severity, both in a situation where the law requires limited evidence to be produced to justify extradition?
Imagining a parallel case to Assange's, but based on 'genuine allegations', please tell me at what precise part in the legal process as played out in the case of Assange would the parallel case have taken shortcuts and gone faster due to the allegations 'looking more genuine' to one or more of the judges.
'"... In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep". ..."'
You missed another pertinent quote, namely her alleged question when she woke up and his alleged response; "are you wearing anything" "yes, you".
A lot of people have been doing the textual equivalent of photoshopping the truth today. Personally I wish the man - who has been convicted for some very serious offences, thus raising the probability of serial offending and offending in other domains (which is how the careers of serious offenders develop) - would do the decent thing; allow his accusers to confront him in a court of law, instead of running from them.
If Assange had gone to Sweden to clear his name (as suggested here) straight away, the whole case could have been closed rather quickly (with conviction or not, doesn't matter here).
But is that what Assange really wants?
Now it's been some 500 days of repeated nuisance in public media, both him personally as well as Wikileaks finding frequent mention. It certainly does help his cause, because it did spread the word about himself and Wikileaks.
I wouldn't be too surprised if he went to Sweden some day [*] and the whole case collapsed because the allegations don't hold water. (Part of me thinks it's a set up, anyway, and the girls withdraw the allegations in the near future, or the case is full of holes and Assange won't actually be charged for anything)
[*] some day, because I don't believe Assange admits defeat. Maybe he'll be on the run for a while, drawing other countries into this... You know, just to keep the media coverage rolling.
The case is "full of holes". The Swedish police already dropped the case once, for that reason. Re-opening the case has become, in retrospect, bad press for Sweden & the Swedish Police.
FYI: All sex is rape in Sweden, as long as the female claims it to be. As a classic scenario, having sex with a girl who has just been jilted can and would be described as expoiting her fragile psychological state (should she wish to press charges) and the charge will be similar to the one JA is facing. Sweden is a strange place - really!
I notice you know zip all about swedish law. A good place from which to comment.
As mentioned before: if you have sex, of whatever nature, with someone in Sweden *without their consent*, you are SOL.
Of course, it is part of the story that (a) only around 20 per cent of estimated sexual crimes are reported, (b) in 19 per cent of THOSE can you pinpoint an assailant, and out of THAT (c) 30 per cent are found guilty.
So yeah. Sweden IS a strange place - consent is considered VERY important, but the lack of it ain't.
Why haven't we (the UK) obtained an assurance from the Swedish authorities that Assange will be returned to British jurisdiction if he so desires, after he is found not guilty by a Swedish court, or after he serves his sentence in Sweden if he is found guilty?
That would kybosh all the conspiracy stuff about it being a front for extraditing him to the USA, and clear the path for an allegation of sexual misconduct to be dealt with in the proper way. (I don't say "rape" because what I've read suggests it isn't. Statutory rape, maybe). It could also have been done in days.
If course if the Swedes refused this, it would prove the conspiracy!
Here's one for you:
Maybe Assange himself has engineered the allegations in Sweden, and they are frivolous or false. Whilst he is fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, he cannot be extradited from the UK to the US. It makes sense for him to draw out the process for as long as possible until any political pressure from the US to have him rendered thereunto eases off. Once he does eventually get extradited to Sweden, any investigation and charges can be brought, and either he is not charged, found not guilty, or faces a short custodial sentence which is covered by time already served.
After all, if you're going to come up with conspiracy theories, it helps if they fit the facts and are half-way plausible.
>>"Maybe Assange himself has engineered the allegations in Sweden, and they are frivolous or false. Whilst he is fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, he cannot be extradited from the UK to the US. "
But what would prevent the Swedes dropping/postponing their case if the US put in an extradition request on much more serious charges?
"But what would prevent the Swedes dropping/postponing their case if the US put in an extradition request on much more serious charges?"
Within the law, or outside it? As long as the case is ongoing, all other requests are put on hold. There's also grace periods after the case is closed, and so forth. IANAL. WITHIN the law he's pretty well protected.
Outside the legal system? Nothing what so ever prevents them from just shipping him off. Except, of course, the "whops, you broke the law in full view of the international media" bit.
I know YANAL but you have stated things such as Sweden don't recognise the things Assange as done with repect to the US as crimes, this is silly in the extreme, please check out TIAS 10812 (it's easy to find, simple to read), it's enough that Assange was associated with Bradley Manning, he would even be a criminal "after the fact" specifically;
(3) Subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article, extradition shall
also be granted for conspiring in, attempting, preparing for, or participating in, the commission
of an offense.
OK, so Assange will stress that it was anonymous and he didn't know who Bradley was until after it all came out, but that's not enough to prevent being accused of it.
And, so on to Article VI;
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed;
or
(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.
So, no, as soon as Assange hits Swedish soil, the US can extradite him immediately, they don't have to put the extradition on hold at all.
I am not, but these are:
http://lundagard.se/2011/02/08/obefintlig-risk-att-assange-utlamnas-till-usa/
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/experter-utlamning-till-usa-utdragen-process
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/inte-sveriges-beslut-om-utlamning_5793955.svd
It would appear that quite a few legal eagles agree with my take on it. Besides, you do yourself refer to Article 3 of TIAS 10812. Did you bother to read Article 2 which IT refer to?
This is simple enough, as you say: if Assange did something in the US that THEY consider a crime, but which is NOT a crime in Sweden, or is a crime but with a sentence of less than two years, it is NOT an "extraditable offense". Which Art. 3 refer to.
You're missing the point, it's not what some consider (il)legal, it's what could be considered legal, within the extradition framework it's possible the US will extradite him, immediately and the instant that his feet hit Swedish soil - whether you disagree, or even find a legal body to argue the point is irrelevant, if the US take such action (which I consider likely) then there is definitely a legal way of doing it, I'm not saying there wouldn't be any resistance to this, you seem to be in complete denial that the US would try - even if they thought failure was likely, it doesn't mean they wouldn't try!
>>This is simple enough, as you say: if Assange did something in the US that THEY consider a crime, but which is NOT a crime in Sweden, or is a crime but with a sentence of less than two years, it is NOT an "extraditable offense". Which Art. 3 refer to.
OK, again with the interpretation that meets your needs, just imagine for one moment one idea; Imagine the US would very much like to get Assange on to US soil even if you think this is an outlandish idea just run with it, it's an idea (and mooted by many US politicians). Hold that thought.... how would the US do this? OK now you're getting there - extradition.
And don't forget, all this goes on hold if the US decide to apply for conditional surrender, not technically extradition "Lag 1957:668 om Utlamning for Brott" - therefore not only is the EAW irrelevant (the UK has absolutely no say, even if it wanted to) it only has to be approved by the Swedish supreme court - and the courts have been very accomodating to the prosecution so far.
"We have that assurance, it's part of the EAW - no-one can be sent to another jurisdiction without the agreement of the country they were extradited from."
I think Assange is looking for an assurance that he won't find himself in a ziploc bag on his way to WashingtonDC. I don't think he gives a f**k about these "rape" charges.
Has A$$nut and his sheeple been stuck with the whole legal bill for all his time-wasting? I really hope so, even though I'm sure his rich and gormless chums can afford it, at least his idiocy won't have cost the British taxpayer. And, as a bonus, any money from his crowd means less money for them to plough into their moronic ventures. If he has been stuck with the full legal bill it will be an early and celebratory beer-o'clock today!
Though it would be a joy to see this convict sunk under the waterline with a big bill, I imagine the doe eyed females who so naively flock to his side will cough up. So will a variety of barristers, solicitors and yuman rights wannabees. Watch.
If not, it has to be remembered that his salary from Wikileaks is about £80,00 pa, then there is the proposed pay wall, the book, the film rights, the contractual relationships with newspapers and any other of the sources so eager for something 'new' to hawk.
"The Swedes had Nokia and Saab as US payments for support in the cold war. Now they don't exist anymore.... who is paying who?"
Uh. You DO know that Nokia is Finnish and that SAAB still exists? Are you simply trying for sarcasm, or are you this amazingly lacking in general knowledge?
Nokia was created in 1871 as a paper manufacturer. SAAB was created in 1937 to produce military aircraft for the Swedish armed forces (primarily). I dunno whether to laugh or swear.
First off, they probably don't have enough evidence to convict him yet. If they did, it would have leaked out by now. I suspect they will want to thrash Manning in court, then - when they get to the plea-bargaining stage - hope to get the info they need out of Manning. So I suspect A$$nut and his fellow Wikileakers are safe for a while yet, the Manning case is not going to be over in a flash.
Secondly, the Obumbler is facing an election soon. He needs the kooks and nutjobs on his side, so he will not want to upset them right before an election by extraditing their "hero". It's not like the kooks and nutjobs will vote Republican to spite Obambi, but if they just don't vote that could be enough to win it for Romney in some swing States.
Thirdly, if they try and extradite A$$nut now, they would have to provide the evidence they have to the Swedes, and that would mean it would be leaked to the World five minutes after it reached Sweden. At the moment, any evidence against A$$nut being actively involved in Manning's data theft (which they need to charge A$$nut under the Espionage Act) is probably quite weak. They would much rather wait until after the Manning trial when they may have something more concrete to use against A$$nut and the herds of ACLU types that will no-doubt rush to his defence.
Fourthly, and I suspect this is the main reason, it simply suits the US to watch Manning's reputation get shafted in Sweden. After all, the prosecution are going to have a field-day with his reportedly "lamentable technique" and personal habits. What better way to diminish his appeal to the sheeple than by letting him be prosecuted for a socially-unacceptable crime. I'm sure the US would rather see A$$but standing in a Swedish dock as a rape suspect rather than an US one as a "hero".
So, can all the shrieking, tinfoil-wearing sheeple just give it a rest, please.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
