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.
  1. Occams_Cat
    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Dazed and Confused

        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.

        1. Ben Tasker

          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 ;)

          1. Tom 13

            @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. Ben Tasker

              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. Oninoshiko
                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. Windrose

                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

        2. Anonymous Coward
          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?

        3. david wilson

          @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.

        4. Scorchio!!
          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.

        5. Tom 13

          @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.

      2. Mad Mike

        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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?

      1. Carl
        Stop

        Re: Err...

        He offered to take the interview in the UK.

        The Swedes declined.

        1. Matt Bryant 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.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        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. Windrose

          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/

        2. Scorchio!!
          FAIL

          Re: Err...

          Proofy woofy? I thought not.

    3. That Steve Guy

      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.

      1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
        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.

        1. david wilson

          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?

          1. No, I will not fix your computer
            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.

            1. Windrose

              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.

            2. Scorchio!!
              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.

              1. No, I will not fix your computer
                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....... ;-)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            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"

            1. Windrose

              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. Scorchio!!
          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.

    4. david wilson

      >>"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.

    5. Matt Bryant 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?

    6. Scorchio!!
      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.

    7. BillG
      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?

  2. It wasnt me
    Happy

    3..2..1..

    Scorchio, Gumby, you here yet?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: 3..2..1..

        "I foos to spond to this obvus troool".

  3. JimC

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. Ben Tasker

          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.

          1. nexsphil

            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.

            1. Ben Tasker
              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

              1. Tom 13
                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.

        2. No, I will not fix your computer
          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.

          1. Windrose
            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.

            1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

              @ 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.

              1. Windrose
                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.

                1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

                  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?

                  1. Windrose
                    Thumb Down

                    Re: @ Windrose

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

                    The wobbly concept "temporary surrender" is defined in our old friend TIAS 10812, specifically Article VI. It state:

                    "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:"

                    Notice anything peculiar? I refer my learned friend to Article 2, part 1. In addition, Swedish law explicitly forbids extradition in specific cases where there is a fear of torture, the death penalty, etc; and under some circumstances if it is a political crime.

                    Since some US politicians already HAVE called for the death penalty (for an innocent man, no less; let's not forget the 'unless proven guilty' here) it is not a politically popular idea.

                    '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'

                    I AM aware that quite a few people would like to see 'rape' not being an offense, but alas, it is, in Sweden as in most places. The penalty for this would likely be in the 2-4 year bracket. BS, in other words.

          2. Scorchio!!
            FAIL

            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 (several sections of the extradition agreements would cover it), I would be completely astounded if they don't at least try."

            Nope. Wrong, because the Swedes are bound under the EAW to refer to the UK first for authorisation. Accordingly that would mean the UK would have to refer the matter to Australia. Anyhow, the US government have said they do not yet have sufficient material for a case but, you know, I am certain that the matter will crystallise over the next year or so. Just in time for Julian to be arrested when he is released from Swedish Bubba's ever loving arms. Meheh.

            So you could argue that there is a conspiracy to hold him in Sweden until the EAW becomes an irrelevance, that is to say Assange is convicted, imprisoned and then released and, as soon as he steps out of the prison gates Special Agent John Smith will render unto Obama what is Obama's due.

            This of course would happen without reference to the UK, since the EAW will have lapsed and will have been superseded by a spell doing porridge, and that would eliminate the Australia problem. Game, set, match and Assange gets to bunk Bradley Manning.

            I said this last year and no one picked up on it, not even the tin foil brigade, who resemble k00ks everywhere but will beat their chests and claim that they are the only sensible people 'here'. I reckon there are a few section 3s here.

      2. Chad H.

        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.

    2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

      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. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm in two minds about this. I expect him to be shunted direct to America from Sweden after the sex case trial collapses, which would be an abuse to the extradition process, which would give evidence to less annoying people facing extradition who want to argue that the process was likely to be abused.

    Thus while it's annoying that the system is open to such abuse, it's not so bad if it means only Assange gets shafted this way.

    1. nugge

      And you base this on your vast experience of Swedish law? I'm from Sweden and don't have an opinion whatsoever whether the prosecutor has a case or not since the evidence will presented once (and if) this goes to court. However, Swedish law prohibits immideate extradition to US and since US has death penalty, there are even more laws making this extremely difficult to do. UK on the other hand can send him there whenever US asks for it since there is a collaboration between them regarding this, so if US would be the problem for Assange, he should run for Sweden as he is safer there.

      1. nexsphil

        evidence?

        >the evidence will presented

        You seriously think this has anything to do with actual legal process? I'm just surprised the US didn't go for the paedophile angle.

        I sincerely doubt I'm alone when I say I'm very, very disappointed in Sweden. We all know the UK is a slave to its former colony, but bloody Sweden?? We always viewed that place as a beacon of progressive ideas - not abject cowardice.

    2. david wilson

      @Mycho

      >>I'm in two minds about this. I expect him to be shunted direct to America from Sweden after the sex case trial collapses, which would be an abuse to the extradition process, which would give evidence to less annoying people facing extradition who want to argue that the process was likely to be abused."

      But since he was hoping to stay in Sweden anyway, why would anyone bother with the whole bloody thing in the first place, rather than just have the US build up a case against him in secret to pass to the supposedly compliant Swedes whenever they felt like it?

  5. Thomas 18
    Facepalm

    "the European arrest warrant system could collapse if..."

    and what a terrible thing that would be!

    1. Chad H.

      Re: "the European arrest warrant system could collapse if..."

      Yeah it would. Commit a crime in london, and take the Eurostar to Paris to get off.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "the European arrest warrant system could collapse if..."

        Because no-one ever thought of extradition treaties before the EU came along. Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 between Britain and the US? Similar treaty agreed between Britain and France in 1843? France and Wurttemberg, 1759?

        I wish I was a liberal and not have to waste time with facts and research to back up my arguments.

  6. Tom 38

    Shocked

    I'm shocked that a man wanted for questioning by one of our close neighbours in Europe is being allowed to be extradited there to face the music. I thought one of the basic tenets of law is that if you flee the country before you get charged, and then spend millions of pounds fighting extradition, that you should basically get away scot-free.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shocked

      Now now, this is no time for sarcasm. Although..

      I'm never glad that someone has to face the music for basically being an idiot, but in the case of Assange Im happy to make an exception (although I won't break out the champagne). He had 100% control over the situation, that it came to this is edge-to-edge his own fault. The irony that it took a leak of the case documents to disprove his version was just a delicious topping..

      What I especially like is how it draws out the clueless and the misguided in his defence. Let the down votes begin, I ought to clock a record here today.

  7. Velv
    Flame

    No matter what you think of wikileaks, the man is accused of RAPE.

    RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE

    If he is innocent, he should be desperate to prove his innocence. Doesn't matter if he is charged, arrested, or simply subjected to media flogging, he should be trying to CLEAR HIS NAME, not sidestep the accusations and divert attention (unless of course he knows he's guilty).

    There are MANY people who claim extradition from the UK to the US is far too easy. It's actually easier than from Sweden, so if he's really worried about extradition, he should be desperate to get out of the UK.

    I know some people are blind to the true extent of the situation and will support Assange just becasue he founded wikileaks and it's freedom of speech at all cost. But is rape an acceptable cost? For many years "Wanna be in my gang" was hailed as an anthem. Strange you don't hear it much these days since the truth came out about the singer...

    Don't bother to down vote if you're an Assange Fanbois. THINK about the whole situation, and consider who you would "let off" with raping your daughter. For the record, I support wikileaks.

    1. Thomas 18
      Thumb Down

      Turnabout

      No matter what you think of Swedish prosecutors, they are investigating RAPE

      RAPE RAPE RAPE

      If they really want to investigate the case, they should be desperate to interrogate him. Doesn't matter if it's by Skype or Conference call. The prosecutor should be filing charges if they have EVIDENCE instead of pissing about trying to extradite him.

      There are ZERO reasons why someone has to be extradited when all you want to do is talk to them. There is ZERO reason why you can't file charges TODAY.

      You can try people in absentia, if they have that strong a case then they should be presenting it. THINK about the whole situation and consider that anyone can be ACCUSED, what matters is CONVICTION and EVIDENCE.

      Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly requested that Assange make himself available for QUESTIONING.

      QUESTIONING

      QUESTIONING

      QUESTIONING

      QUESTIONING

      QUESTIONING

      1. Colin Millar
        Coat

        Re: Turnabout

        WHERE ARE THE WINGS!

        oh sorry - wrong conspiracy

      2. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Turnabout

        "If they really want to investigate the case, they should be desperate to interrogate him. Doesn't matter if it's by Skype or Conference call. The prosecutor should be filing charges if they have EVIDENCE instead of pissing about trying to extradite him."

        But, as soon as his counsel found out that the Swedish police wanted to interview him with a view to arresting and charging him he fled the country. Fancy that, eh?

        It's a matter of jurisdiction, not kook farts in internet fora.

        1. Thomas 18
          FAIL

          Re: Turnabout

          You either have the evidence or you don't. If you want an interview they call him up, if you want to charge him then present evidence.

          What you describe is called circumstantial evidence and it's very very thin circumstantial evidence at that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually, it wasn't rape until he refused to get himself tested to set the girls' mind at ease. That makes him in my eyes a weasel, and I'm actually impressed by the Swedish legal system that this escalates into a charge equivalent to rape.

      As I said before - he has nobody to blame but himself. If his lawyer told him to flee the country as it has been rumoured, the lawyer must also have briefed him on possible consequences. I find his bleating about it all being a US plot actually rather tiring, but then again, I'm not exactly an Assange fan. I can with a degree of effort see the original point of Wikileaks, but that goal has since long been subverted by Assange and his buddies.

    3. Lee Dowling Silver badge

      Not defending him, I can't stand the man to be honest, but:

      Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He's not been. Thus you can't go bandying the word rape about. Similarly, if a teacher was arrested for sexual abuse of a child, you can't call him anything until it's been proven. Because the ACCUSATION is bigger than anything else and causing more reputational damage that anything else. You're not a child, nor a vigilante. Wait until things are proven in a court of law (ANY court of law will suffice) and then you can claim you know better about what you'd do.

      He has denied the claim (notice: not a charge!). He is fighting extradition on the basis that the claim is false. If the US, say, falsely accuse you of rape, are you going to pop over and clear your name and thus surrender to their legal system or argue that you shouldn't have to be extradited there at all? Some would say that going over would be a sign that you believe there are valid charges to be faced. This is no difference, and the US is involved even if it's not as direct.

      You're trying to paint him, obliquely, as a rapist. He's not. Because he's not been charged with that or had it proven and, to be honest, is in the legal system to stop those charges taking action (which he couldn't do if they had a really solid case against him) based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on.

      Reading anything into anything he does at the moment is actually WORSE than just assuming nothing. It's like taking "No Comment" to mean "I did it" - although the phrase is used as a mechanism by the guilty, innocent people are well-advised to use it by their lawyers because it's the SAFEST thing, legally, to say.

      You're exposing your own bias. Just because you'd submit to a random foreign country trying to extradite you on false charges in order to clear your name (and, just for a minute, suppose that country was somewhere with a bit less of a reliable court system), doesn't mean that every "innocent" person should either. Hell, I'd fight extradition on the basis that I'm already in an EU country and the trial could be held in any EU country because they have the same laws (and, often, cases are tried in one country using the laws and jurisdiction of another because it aids the logistical parts of the problems involved) and / or they haven't filed charges (which they should do if they want to see me in court). I can be questioned, even under arrest, from anywhere in the world. Hell, I can appear in court in any country in the world by video-link if necessary.

      But, for some strange reason, these rape ALLEGATIONS are not being backed up as they should be, not being enforced as they should be, not being taken as seriously in the country trying to extradite him as they should be (if they think he's the rapist, he could be charged, tried and even sentenced already and in his absence rather than drag it out for the victim). And people like you take the words "rape allegation" and only see "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE". Rather than, as you should "allegation" (i.e. completely without proof as of yet).

      1. JetSetJim
        Headmaster

        Re: Lee Dowling

        More semantically correct to say "Innocent unless proven guilty". The "until" seems to make a presumption of guilt.

        1. auburnman

          Re: Lee Dowling

          I would argue that the 'until' is more about the timeframe, i.e. it is correct to talk about the 'alleged' crime before a guilty verdict has been delivered; calling a person a criminal before they are convicted* is wrong even if they are later convicted.

          *assuming you are a bystander, not the victim or a witness etc.

      2. Hawknic
        FAIL

        Quote: "based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on."

        But didn't the ruling today say he could be extradited? And wasn't it made by the UK's highest court? How can that mean that UK law says that there isn't enough to extradite?

        This thread is a logic free zone.

        1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

          Quote: "based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on."

          Yes a lack of logic, but you are confusing two different things, law and justice.

          I'm not going to evoke Godwin's law, but It's an easy exercise to find laws in most countries that are neither fair, equitable or just.

          1. Scorchio!!
            FAIL

            "I'm not going to evoke Godwin's law, but It's an easy exercise to find laws in most countries that are neither fair, equitable or just."

            Before any state can join the EU it must meet certain standards; criminal law, human rights [...].

      3. Scorchio!!

        Then he won't have a problem with returning to the jurisdiction he fled whence, as soon as his legal counsel found out the police wanted to interview him with a view to arresting and then charging him, he fled. As with Assange, so with Coulson.

    4. auburnman

      Innocent until proven guilty; I have no opinion one way or the other because I don't have all the facts, but don't go ascribing guilty motives to his legal actions to avoid extradition. You could equally argue that if he is innocent, he is afraid of/stressed out by facing false allegations.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        All this talk of 'innocent until proven guilty'. You should all know better.

        It's 'innocent unless proven guilty'.

        It's a subtle but important distinction - the first implies that nothing has been nailed on you yet but it's just a case of holding onto you until they find something. The second states categorically that unless you have been convicted of something, you are innocent, and must be treated as such.

        Which would you rather have, Cardinal Richelieu with, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", or Voltaire with, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

    5. Schultz
      Stop

      Incitement to hatred

      You should read up on what Mr. Assange is actually accused of. It's rape as defined by by Swedish law, but it would probably not meet the definition of rape where I live (and most probably neither where you live). So please reconsider before you gather the lynch mob.

      So tone back the hate speech, Mr. Velv!

      1. Tom 38

        Re: Incitement to hatred

        Two things:

        1) Seeing how he was in Sweden at the time, what they consider to be rape is quite pertinent here.

        2) He didn't make himself available for questioning, he told his lawyer to hide him from investigators whilst he fled to a different country.

        Actions speak louder than words.

    6. arkhangelsk

      Not a lot of thought as to why rape was chosen here...

      It is not only emotional, but also especially vulnerable to politics. The victim can show no bruises and not even PTSD symptoms, but still potentially get her way if she can convince the judge, based on her testimony that she was unwilling. Even a logically inconsistent piece of testimony may be excused on "she was traumatized..."

      If we are serious about reasonable doubt, such rape cases should never be heard in court - what's the point. Unless there are horrible injuries or PTSD, any objective evidence can only show that they indeed had sex, and the rest is up to testimony, hardly the normal composition of a "reasonable doubt" conviction.

      Instead, they lower the standards. Necessarily, perhaps, b/c not every rape case leaves horrible injuries or PTSD. But it leaves a lot to the discretion of the judge. Given the politics, I can see why Assange is less interested about the nebulous hope of clearing his name.

      1. david wilson

        @arkhangelsk

        >>"The victim can show no bruises and not even PTSD symptoms, but still potentially get her way if she can convince the judge, based on her testimony that she was unwilling. Even a logically inconsistent piece of testimony may be excused on "she was traumatized...""

        >>"If we are serious about reasonable doubt, such rape cases should never be heard in court - what's the point. Unless there are horrible injuries or PTSD, any objective evidence can only show that they indeed had sex, and the rest is up to testimony, hardly the normal composition of a "reasonable doubt" conviction."

        Couldn't you apply similar logic to any number of other situations?

        In general cases (not just sexual ones), if there is objective evidence that someone has been injured, it could be one person's word against another whether an injury was accidental or deliberate (He pushed me/He fell/He jumped") , and even where an injury is clearly not accidental or self-inflicted, in the absence of forensic evidence pointing to a particular assailant, it's often still one person's word against another who was responsible.

        What is the 'objective evidence' for theft, if it can be a matter of dispute whether someone taking property was doing so with or without the owner's consent?

        If someone uproots half the flowers in my garden and sticks them in my compost bin while I am on holiday, what is the 'objective evidence' for criminal damage if they claim I had asked them to do it?

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What ever happened to,

      Innocent until proven guilty!

      Your whole post leans toward him being guilty. We know nothing!

    8. Mad Mike
      Thumb Down

      @Velv

      The big issue with this, is that you can never clear your name from this sort of prosecution as many a man has found. The same is true of kiddy fiddling. If your accused, the general concensus tends be no smoke without fire. Teachers have had their whole careers ruined by complete lies, which have been shown as such in court. Still, they can't get jobs. Nobody is brave enough to employ a teacher who has had charges such as these laid against them, even when found unproven.

      In sex crimes (and some others), acquittal is never seen as innocent (clearing your name) amongst the population and employers.

      However, with the amount of publicity this particular case has had, it can't exactly get any worse. The issue people need to consider in this country, is why the accuser is allowed anonymity forever (regardless of whether shown to be a lying conniving person) and yet the accused is splattered all over the papers and publically hung long before the trial.

  8. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
    Joke

    You know..

    .. some people really need to check out their keyboards. They seem to have developed a strange kind of auto-repeat, combined with a stuck caps lock. Weird. Is this this Flame thing the virus chaps talk about?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: You know..

      Why can't I link to images with the 101st keyboarder "operator" section proudly showing off their additional chromosomes.

  9. Jeebus

    I see we have the ability to try and execute people on the Reg forums now, thank your gods we don't need due process any more, some guy can skip lines and type in capitals to really hit the point home.

    Enjoy Guantanamo Assange, it's the only reason these "charges" exist at all.

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      execute people on the Reg forums

      Btw, what happened to that Reg survey regarding more atrocious capital punishing?

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: execute people on the Reg forums

        Dunno, I did say I was for bringing back hanging, just not by the neck. Seems appropriate here given the sentiment :)

        I do agree with some that the correct statement is is that he is wanted for questioning in relation to a possible rape. The circumstances seem to support a charge, but until a judge say he is guilty he is just a weak tosser - oh, no, that he isn't, make it jerk.

        He is not actually a rapist, nor was the original charge this - it escalated into one at that level because he didn't cooperate with what I personally don't see as a wholly unreasonable request from the women involved. So, principally he is wanted for being a jerk, with questioning potentially elevating that to rapist.

        Is that enough to get downvotes? It's been pretty poor so far - just as if nobody cares.. :)

      2. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: execute people on the Reg forums

        Capital punishing- for TYPING in CAPS??

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Big Brother

    "sexual harassment and rape" ... "the UK Supreme Court rule"

    Ah yes. Smear, entrap, then find some gimp to act on it.

    Well, President Obomba has not yet personally (but oh so very morally and with the gravitas required of decisions pertaining to state terror) okayed a Death Note on Julian yet, so we should be grateful.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: "sexual harassment and rape" ... "the UK Supreme Court rule"

      I think you might need to adjst your tin-foil hat. It seems to have made you spell 'Obama' incorrectly. Ironically so, given you have done so in a sentence directly following one that mentions smearing people's names.

    2. Scorchio!!
      Pirate

      Re: "sexual harassment and rape" ... "the UK Supreme Court rule"

      'Scuse me, I've just parked my black helicopter on your lawn and I wondered if you wanted a lift... ...only I've got Jack Bauer with me and he's desperate to have a word with you, so that your conspiracy dreams can come true.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stinks

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven!

    As far as I am concerned Assange is a douchebag but WikiLeaks itself is a great idea if it was run with appropriate oversight.

    If Sweden was really only wanting him for questioning about the alleged rapes, then how hard is it to coordinate with UK authorities and send the lead Swedish investigators to the UK and question him there? If the questioning then lead to an arrest warrant then extradition would have been much easier, faster and less costly to taxpayers all around.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stinks

      The Sweedish authorities have no jurisdiction to interview in the UK, it would likely be a legal nightmare to sort this out. However, Assange fled Sweeden, the whole thing could have been sorted out far cheaper if he hadn't done so.

      1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

        Re: Stinks

        The Sweedish authorities have no jurisdiction to interview in the UK

        <ring> <ring> "Hello Mr Assange, is it OK with you if we come to the UK and ask you a few questions?" No different from having a plod call to your front door requesting that you help them with their enquiries.

        As for him fleeing Sweden, maybe the Swedes were hoping he'd go somewhere where they didn't have an extradition agreement

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Stinks

          @FMVK - If he is interviewed by Sweedish police in the UK, he will not have any statutory protections, he will not be interviewed under caution, I daresay this would also cause conspiracy claims. The Sweedish police are, after all in a no-win situation, whatever they do will be a conspiracy in the eyes of Assange's supporters.

        2. Ben Tasker

          Re: Stinks

          No different from having a plod call to your front door requesting that you help them with their enquiries.

          You mean other than the fact that plod are operating within their own jurisdiction?

          Also, what incentive is there for the Swedish authorities to do that? Let's imagine they come to the UK to interview JA. He breaks down and confesses (for sake of example), would that even be admissible in a Swedish Court (I don't know)? Why would they want to risk having anything ruled inadmissible?

          It's also not up to the suspect/witness where they are interviewed. The authorities decide that, especially where someone may be a suspect. If the old bill ever say "Mind coming down to the station sir?" don't make the mistake of thinking they are asking, what that are actually saying is "Come down to the station with me". It's the way it works.

          As for him fleeing Sweden, maybe the Swedes were hoping he'd go somewhere where they didn't have an extradition agreement

          That's quite, quite possible. Unfortunately for him, and us, he came to Blighty. Had he gone to Sealand he'd probably be off scot-free for the time being (and in the future we may find no charges are filed, or even that he's acquitted. He is the one preventing either of those two happening at the moment)

          1. Robert Heffernan

            @Ben Tasker Re: Stinks

            There is plenty of precedent around the world of evidence gathered in another country being used in legal proceedings.

            The whole Kim Dot Com thing with the US authorities providing information to the NZ judicial system.

            The Australian police informing the Bali police that a passenger on an incoming flight is carrying drugs.

            All kinds of things like that. And if the Swedish officers arrived on Julian Assange's doorstep the UK constabulary would be there to ensure the Swedes were conducting themselves within UK, EU and international law that would be applicable.

            In this day and age Jurisdiction just means a little more paperwork.

        3. Oninoshiko
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Stinks

          "As for him fleeing Sweden, maybe the Swedes were hoping he'd go somewhere where they didn't have an extradition agreement"

          You mean like, oh, Sweden? That country he fled as soon as questions start being asked?

    2. slack

      Re: Stinks

      "As far as I am concerned Assange is a douchebag but WikiLeaks itself is a great idea if it was run with appropriate oversight."

      This.

      I've tried to watch his new show on RT but he is an insufferably annoying prick, his aims may be in the right place, but his smug self-promotion is nauseating.

      I think he's toast now and will be cooling his heels for a long time in a US prison soon. They'll go all out to charge him with anything and everything they can think of just to get an extradition.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stinks

      That a part of Assange(tm) stinks is indeed an accurate, if somewhat graphic description of the issue at hand (or in hand, if you want to focus in on the specific part).

      I'll be here all week..

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'll be in Sweden later in the year

    I'll take him in a herring with a file* in it.

    * from wikileaks

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Allow me to preface....

      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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Allow me to preface....

      Yes your daughter should be extradited to Turkey to face sexual misconduct charges if

      ...and this is a very important *if*...

      she has annoyed our American Overlords.

      Has she?

    3. JohnG

      Re: Allow me to preface....

      "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.

    4. david wilson

      Re: Allow me to preface....

      >>"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).

    5. Chad H.

      Re: Allow me to preface....

      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.

      1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

        Re: Allow me to preface....

        > what can the US do with assange in Sweden that they cant do with the UK.

        Get him extradited. In the UK they can't. They could if he was a UK citizen, but he isn't, and the UK is tied by a treaty with Australia. Otherwise he would have been in Gitmo for a while now.

  14. ratfox
    Angel

    £50 says...

    He spends less time in Swedish jails than he has spent fighting extradition.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: £50 says...

      £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).

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nope..

      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..

    2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Coat

      but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped

      So he had a wiki-leak

      I know, I know, bad taste, shouldn't joke about such things, I'll just get my coat then

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        "So he had a winkie-leak"

        There, fixed that for you.

    3. Windrose
      Thumb Down

      "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.

    4. david wilson

      @AC

      >>"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.

    5. Scorchio!!

      '"... 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.

  16. sysconfig

    It's all about publicity...

    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.

    1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Coat

      Re: It's all about publicity...

      and the girls withdraw the allegations in the near future

      It was Assange that should have withdrew...

      I know, I know, bad taste again, I shouldn't joke about such things, I'll really get my coat this time.

      1. Scorchio!!
        Devil

        Re: It's all about publicity...

        I understand that oral sex is mostly safer, though the human papilloma virus affects men as well as women, resulting in oral cancers.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's all about publicity...

      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!

      1. david wilson

        Re: It's all about publicity...

        >>"The Swedish police already dropped the case once..."

        There were different views from different people regarding whether rape had been committed, but there doesn't seem to have been a time at which the whole case was dropped.

      2. Windrose
        WTF?

        Re: It's all about publicity...

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's all about publicity...

          It does not have to be "without there consent" to be classified as a sexual offence. There are plenty of consential possibilities. The example cited is in the law. Do I really need to find the citation and translate it for you?

      3. Scorchio!!
        Trollface

        Re: It's all about publicity...

        "The case is "full of holes". "

        The condom was AIUI. ;-)

  17. Nigel 11
    Facepalm

    What the UK should have done

    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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What the UK should have done

      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.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        If it's conspiracy theories you want...

        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.

        1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
          WTF?

          Re: If it's conspiracy theories you want...

          Whilst he is fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, he cannot be extradited from the UK to the US

          Then why did he come to the UK?

        2. david wilson

          @Loyal Commenter

          >>"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?

          1. Windrose

            Re: @Loyal Commenter

            "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.

            1. No, I will not fix your computer
              Stop

              @Windrose

              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.

              1. Windrose
                Flame

                Re: @Windrose

                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.

                1. No, I will not fix your computer
                  Stop

                  Re: @Windrose

                  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.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What the UK should have done

        "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.

    2. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: What the UK should have done

      Assange can go where the hell he likes if found innocent or after serving time. He's a past master at flitting about. Wake up FGS.

  18. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pint

    All I want to know is...

    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!

    1. Scorchio!!
      Meh

      Re: All I want to know is...

      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.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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?

    Nokia was set up to "test" phone gear near the coast of nearby countries which were listening stations.

    Five billion a year is some serious money.

    1. Windrose
      Thumb Down

      Facts are tricky, aren't they?

      "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.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: Facts are tricky, aren't they?

        "I dunno whether to laugh or swear."

        Tin foil bde I'd say.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Time to man up

    Assange needs to return to Sweden to answer rape charges.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer
      FAIL

      Re: Time to man up

      Don't you mean return to Sweden to answer questions about rape alegations? there's no charges (yet) and the victims indicated that they didn't want the case pursued. He offered to answer questions in the UK, the offer was turned down by Marianne Ny (the prosecutor) .

  21. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    Why the US won't extradite A$$nut the minute he hits Swedish soil.

    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.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Or...

    Assange will go to Sweden, face trial, be convicted if guilty and go to prison.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like