Julian Assange To Be Extradited To Sweden 530
An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost his challenge against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault. The 39-year-old Australian computer expert, who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website, is wanted in relation to claims made by two WikiLeaks volunteers last August."
Appeal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK does not extradite if they believe the person may be executed.
This is what Assange is fighting for, claiming that Sweden will extradite him to the us, where he will be executed. Therefore by proxy, The UK has gone against their policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Extradition is so 20th century. Nowadays we send people on private vacations to Egypt with all expenses paid. Including burial.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Nor does Sweden [sweden.gov.se]:
Yeah, that's smart. Looking at what they say and not what they do.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition [hrw.org]
Why shouldn't he think that? (Score:3, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/meet-the-people-who-want-julian-assange-whacked.ars [arstechnica.com]
http://news.change.org/stories/brits-arrest-assange-us-politicians-seek-to-hang-him [change.org]
http://www.tomchambless.com/2010/12/01/fox-analyst-mike-huckabee-wants-to-execute-julian-assange-but-let-murderers-go-free/ [tomchambless.com]
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/julian-assange-pentagon-072910 [esquire.com]
Re:Why shouldn't he think that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sarah Palin, Huckabee, some bloggers, and even some two-bit Congresscritters aren't going to get anyone executed for anything. Look at the record. The last time that the Federal Government executed someone for espionage was the Rosenbergs, in 1953. And the reason it happened was because everyone thought that they gave the Soviets the A-Bomb. Before that, it was not exactly common to execute anyone for treason or espionage related acts either. They might or might not have been wrong about the involvement of the Rosenbergs, but no one could argue that the charges were not incredibly serious. Wikileaks is embarrassing, but its not like handing over weapons of mass destruction to an enemy state.
Unless Assange does something a lot more serious the worst he's likely to get, if legally extradited, is ten years or something in Federal prison. The Obama Administration might not have been everything the libs hoped for, but they're not likely to support the death penalty for someone who resembles a journalist. And he'll have every anti-war and free speech interest group submitting briefs and holding protests the entire time. He's far more likely to be shot by some crazy on the way to the courthouse than executed.
I can accept that elements of the government might be murderous enough to have him killed, but it would have to happen covertly. And that is just as likely to happen in the UK as it is in Sweden. The only good legal reason for Assange to not be sent to Sweden is the fact that they hadn't actually charged him with anything, but that does not appear to have been sufficient grounds to refuse.
Re:Appeal (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter whether Assange thinks he might be victimized by the USA or not.
What matters is that significant voices in USA politics have been publicly calling for the USA government to go after Assange. His lawyers have introduced that as evidence. The British court system has to accept that evidence or reject it on some evidentiary basis; it cannot be rejected because it sounds too far-fetched to be true.
I think the action of this lower court is appropriate. Since it knows that Assange has the means and the desire to appeal, it has taken this route to kick a thorny set of legal questions up the stairs, where a court with more appropriate authority can rule on the amount of risk that McCain, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and others represent to Assange's rights under British law.
The same applies to whether the arguments that: 1) he should not be extradited before he is charged with a crime, and 2) that he should not be extradited for behavior that is not recognized as criminal in any EU country other than Sweden. These are all heady matters that deserve the attention of a higher court, and the appropriate way to make that happen is through appeal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that the US has a similar extradition treaty with the UK? If the US really wanted him they could just go after him in Britain.
After the fiasco of the Enron three being extradited to Texas and charged for crimes done in the UK against a UK bank then sentenced to jail over something that isn't even a crime in the UK, it is not likely to happen again. It is also worth noting that it is a staggeringly unfair, one-way extradition policy set up by a previous government and is likely to be repealed if challenged, especially in another political farce, double-dipped with political corruption like this whole Assange business is.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think politicians decide on extraditions, do they? It's a legal matter, and therefore decided by judges.
Appeal (Score:5, Informative)
He's not lost yet, he will be appealing against extradition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865 [bbc.co.uk]
The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't matter. This whole play was written before he even met those women in Sweden.
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
In 50 years, when all the documents are declassified showing the scummy shit going on behind the scenes on this, I'll be sure and send them along.
But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world. You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other. You keep believing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg isn't a plant who's part of a larger effort to discredit Assange by any means necessary, or that these bullshit charges aren't a part of that effort either. You keep believing that some of us didn't see this discrediting campaign coming [slashdot.org] even as Assange was stepping off that plane in Sweden.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it wasn't a chance. Fame tends to both make people stupid and attract parasitic people. Assange got a lot of fame, very quick, and it's both made him stupid and the target of opportunists. I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they? The best way they can discredit wikileaks is by letting Assange continue to self-destruct.
I support the concept of wikileaks. I hope they survive their arrogant twit of a spokesman.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they?
Just in case you've not seen it because you were looking elsewhere, here's the vice president of the United State explaining why he's getting involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
But for now, you just keep believing it's a coincidence that a guy who hadn't had a single criminal offense in 39 years (aside from some minor hacking stuff) suddenly turned into a rapist a few weeks after embarrassing the most powerful government in the world.
Turned into a rapist? Nah. Felt very good about the things he had accomplished, thus getting a booster shot to his ego? Sure. A booster shot that coupled with a semi-infamous reputation which more and more people were starting to hear about in order to make it easier for him to get laid? Twice? Sure, sounds feasible.
You keep believing that it was just chance that two women willing to press charges against him for unrelated crimes both met him within 24 hours of each other.
Random chance? Nah. The fact that his name was starting to take on a bit of a celebrity appeal, the same type of celebrity appeal that convinces sexually insecure women to fuck total douchebag
Re: (Score:3)
By 2013, Assange will be a convicted rapist rotting in a prison cell, and that is how the vast majority of the world will see him. The discrediting campaign is working wonderfully. Articles are already coming out [cnn.com] about Wikileaks's demise, as if it's a foregone conclusion. The ending of the play is already written. Like I said, it was written before Assange even met his "victims."
Re: (Score:3)
I know several people who formerly supported Assange and Wikileaks who now say, "To hell with Assange, he's a rapist," and by association now believe that Wikileaks has no credibility. Even in the unlikely event he's cleared of the charges, the damage is done -- and given the timing of the events, the idea that this was a deliberate smear campaign is not only credible, but ought to be the default assumption.
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Interesting)
So those women are guilty until proven innocent? Assange is innocent until proven guilty at least under US law but this seems like mindless hero worship at this point.
Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't even make sense. The women are accusing him of rape and so far there is zero evidence apart from their word. Of course he is innocent until proven guilty. The women have a well publicised catalogue of making charges, dropping charges, changing charges, spending the days after the alleged 'rape' with the accusers still Twittering about how happy they were to be with him, etc. To an outsider, it sounds like the women are pawns being used by a corrupt Swedish judicary (with police leaking the case to the press plus the Prime Minister trying incite hate against a victim that hasn't even gone to trial yet) on the behest of the US.
Hardly mindless hero worship when backed by a long trail of evidence, albeit some circumstantial, and incredible 'coincidences'.
Phillip.
Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why there will be a trial.
Really if a woman accused you of rape do you not think that you would be arrested and investigated? Do you not think that if you left the country you would have a warrant issued for your arrest? If Assange was Glen Beck would you say the same thing?
Yes, I would (Score:3)
If suddenly two black left wing women who know each other had sex with Glen Beck and then came up with a TECHINICAL rape charge, I would be highly suspicious as well. Lets not forget that this is NOT the kind of rape most of the world would regonize. They did NOT say no to sex, they said no to unprotected sex, then had sex with a condom of their OWN free will, then cried rape when the condom broke. Come on, in most of the world the police would ignore this AND that is what happened until an investigator wit
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Informative)
So: that there will be a Swedish trial doesn't mean justice will be seen to be done.
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Informative)
If the US gov't declares him an enemy combatant, or terrorist, they can detain him indefinitely without ever charging him with anything, essentially giving him a death sentence in prison (since living in gitmo isn't known for it's long survival rates).
So while that's true if he's under US law, don't think for even an 1/8th of a second that this would run through traditional US courts. This has been made impossible to challenge basically because of how they've set up enemy combatant/terrorist.
Also, this isn't even a criminal punishment in sweden with 1yr of jailtime, which is a requirement of extradition.
Re:The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not surprised that people are left to speculate on what the US might do, because the US has recently and clearly demonstrated itself to be capable of gross and persistent violations of human rights (water boarding is torture) of due process (extraordinary rendition) and of deception, equivocation and spinning like a big old ferris wheel to justify these transgressions.
You can't really blame OP for fearing the worst when it comes to the USA's behaviour in these matters.
Re:He didn't rape them (Score:4, Informative)
The definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more liberal than in the UK (or US, for that matter). I think the charge is something along the lines of "having sex without a barrier protection method on the assumption that the parties involved do not sleep around and then subsequently finding out that at least one does sleep around, thus increasing the risk of STDs to the injured party".
It's not, and it's not. Assange has been charged with rape, and the allegations include the use of force to overcome resistance.
Basically, Assange's lawyers have made up a lot of shit about this case, and people like you are eating it up.
Oddly, I wasn't aware that you could be extradited from the UK to face a charge for something that isn't illegal in the UK - I think they're trying (and succeeding, so far) to peg it onto a "sexual assault" charge
Again, your whole premise here is false.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange has been charged with rape, and the allegations include the use of force to overcome resistance
If I recall correctly, he hasn't been *charged* with anything - he is wanted for questioning.
Reading between the lines (and yes, I confess I only have the biased pro-Assange side that has been circulating in the UK, not the biased anti-assange circulating in Sweden and the US) it seems that if the Swedish prosecutors actually charged him, they would have to hand over all the evidence (so he could start work on his defence). If they did this while he was in the UK, he'd bring up the (his defence team claim)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's your brat, you* should pay for its upkeep.
Really? Why?
No matter how you slice it, the current system sucks. Take the case of an unintended pregnancy. If I get a woman pregnant, and she decides to have an abortion, I don't have a say in the matter. If she decides to keep the child, I don't get a say in the matter. Whether or not I shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars depends solely on what decision she makes. How is that fair?
Alternately, consider an intentional pregnancy in a marriage, followed by a divorce. Unless the woman has become
Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:3)
"Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables."
I never got that. He's in England and he's from Australia. Surely these are the 2 biggest allies of the US.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:5, Informative)
I also wondered about this - maybe its something to do with the informal arrangement between the US and Sweden that he leaked before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(sorry for linking to telegraph - came up first on google and I'm lazy!)
D
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know whether the death penalty would be on the table for whatever crimes the US believes him to have committed, but that could block his extradition from the UK at least.
Wikipedia says: "Many countries and areas, such as Canada, Macao,[1] Mexico, and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant [europa.eu] acts).
If the UK wouldn't extradite him to the US directly, there's really no reason to believe that Sweden would somehow have the power to do anything, since the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to the issue with death penalty crimes, Sweden also can't legally turn him over to the US without the UK's approval anyway, under European Union laws (Various extradition rules under the European Arrest Warrant [europa.eu] acts).
FTFY. If Sweden puts him on a flight to the USA then it wouldn't do a whole lot of good if the UK complained about it -- which on current showing they'd be unlikely to do anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
... the UK has a veto on any surrender of him to a third party (at least, a non-EU third party) by Sweden.
Yeah, right, like any part of this farce has followed the laws/rules so far....
eg. An Interpol arrest warrant issued for a crime that was only committed in one country and has a maximum $700 fine...? Uhuh.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's likely easier to extract him from the UK. We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case. The U.S. could have Asange if they'd just find something to charge him with. We in the UK are very helpful in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
We have an extradition treaty that is more accurately described as an agreement to allow U.S. law to be enforced in the UK - even when what was done wouldn't be an offence under UK law, and certainly without the need to make a strong case
Really? That's fucking awful!
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. It's one of many relics from Tony Blair's policy of doing anything for the U.S. in the hopes of receiving the diplomatic equivalent of pity sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 [wikipedia.org]
Treason in all but name.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think that the extradition from UK to Sweden does not automatically give Sweden the right to permit an extradition to US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a significant difference between ally and lapdog. You can do a lot with your lapdogs you can't do with your allies.
I don't know if he is guilty or not. But the whole case have been handled in a strange, high profile, way all the way, which hints that there is a lot of political pressure involved. And that is not good for our legal system here in Sweden.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress. Right now, Assange is an Australian Citizen who has committed no crime in the United States or in the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations. While in Sweden, Assange will be incarcerated or on bail while he awaits and undergoes trial, a process which could take years. This means that Assange will not be able to leave Sweden for a country which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States while undergoing trial in Sweden: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Extradition_treaties_or_agreements [wikipedia.org] for a list of them. This would give the United States time either pass the bill, or find *something* they can stick on Assange. (While Assange is no mobster, remember that they got Capone on tax evasion. The powers that be don't always care about *how* you become guilty, just that you are.)
I'm sure they would have preferred to keep him in the UK - they are the provincial spear carrier of the United States, to use Chomsky's words -, but he committed no crime there, and they are trying to make this look as "legal" as possible. The last thing they want to do is make a huge scene over this, or make a martyr out of Assange through "unjust law" (although that still may happen) and spawn copycats. Thus the die down in press on Assange since his first denial of bond; until now of course.
Don't be surprised if the next thing you see on FOX News is Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of the SHIELD Act, while on CNN you have a "balanced debate" about "national security" and the "continuing need" for "tighter safeguards against terrorism".
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He can still avoid the SHIELD Act (Score:4, Interesting)
Incorrect. There were several exemptions made to ex post facto laws, even ones which led to eventual punishment, all on different grounds, and its hard to imagine "national security" couldn't be one of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. has a powerful influence over the whole EU (and much of the rest of the world). And Assange has no power. Guess who most governments will side with.
He would have been smarter to go to a country whose government was actively hostile to the U.S. and their edicts (like Cuba or Venezuela).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it beats prison, and because Castro would be more than happy to allow him all the freedom he wanted--as long as he wasn't embarrassing Castro or one of his friends.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:4, Interesting)
However the safest place for Assange to resist extradition is the country where he is a citizen, especially as there is a political divide in government about whether wikileaks is a good or bad thing. The underdog, the battler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_battler [wikipedia.org] is very big in Australian culture and Julian versus the whole US government would be extremely popular, especially after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths [wikipedia.org] and that took more than three years without much public sympathy (and not after being lied into a war in Iraq), something which those diplomatic would have likely exposed.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought one of the demands England made for extradition to Sweden was that Assange would not be extradited to the US from Sweden?
Then again, laws only apply to people the US likes.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
UK has a storied history of standing against US extradition requests
You mean like they did with Gary McKinnon [wikipedia.org]? Give me a break, buddy. If Obama pulled his dick out, David Cameron would be on his knees so fast he'd probably break a leg.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy deserves to be extradited.
You based this on what, exactly? Something you read in the papers, or have you seen actual "evidence"? For some small reason, I believe it's the former.. can't pin down why though.
Re:Why does he fear Sweden will send him to US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden also has strict laws against extralegal renditions to countries that torture prisoners, but that didn't help the guy who found himself in Egypt after getting booked by Happy Fun Fun Charter Tours.
This isn't about 'what is likely' to happen... Sure it's unlikely that Sweden will send him off to the US against local laws, what does matter is that the court must be convinced there is no chance at all it will happen. Not just that it isn't likely for some reason like "he's white, not brown like that other guy". Precedent says Sweden is willing to break the law to appease the US, and this seems like a prime candidate for that happening again.
Also it should be obvious why the UK and Australia would want Sweden to do the rendition, as such an action would cause huge political problems. Better to have little Sweden do the dirty work.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it should be obvious why the UK and Australia would want Sweden to do the rendition, as such an action would cause huge political problems. Better to have little Sweden do the dirty work.
Right there is the point of all of this.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>there is little doubt he will be convicted if he has to stand trial.
All a woman has to do is say, "He put his penis in me without a condom," and that's enough to CONVICT a person? Really? (1) If it were true, that would make Sweden a dangerous place, where men can be jailed at any time a woman wishes them to be jailed. "He raped me because I say so." -woman. "Okay that's good enough for me - 20 years." - judge.
(2) I don't believe it Sweden's justice system is that shitty.
(3) What exactly w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the EU citizens really believe the US sucks that bad, then maybe it truly is time for the US to withdraw from Europe, and return to an 1800s-style neutral policy.
Maybe. Or maybe the US could just stop being international thugs, and then maybe EU citizens might stop taking such a jaundiced view of them. Worth a try.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No charges have actually been raised against him. The UK judge ignored that awkward point, as did you.
I would just like to take this opportunity to say. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to use this opportunity to say how much I love my government, my politicians, the corporations within it, the aristocrats, the bureaucrats, the wealthy and everyone else in power. I wish you all success and long, healthy lives. I would never go so far as to even so much as *voice* dissent, much less act out against or for anything. I love you all and consider myself gloriously privileged to live in this country. Most importantly, I enjoy having access to my bank account, medical records, medical services, government services, utility services, my reputation, my property, my family and friends, and continuing to actually exist and not be abducted and disappeared overnight. I promise my sincere obedience in the hope to retain all of these things, which I know come only *with* said obedience and may be withdrawn from my life at your leisure, if I ever make any untoward movements or noises. Bless you all and may you continue to live long and rewarding lives.
TLDR: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW/OLD GOVERNMENT OVERLORDS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It amazes me that people here just don't get the fact that Assange has no case. If you actually read the ruling (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/index), you'll see that not only legally did he have very little to actually complain about, but his own defense lawyer basically lied to the court.
So go ahead, rant about big government and scary oppression all you want, but it's completely irrelevant to this case. Britain and Sweden are members of the European Union. One of the major benefits of
Re: (Score:3)
You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.
What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Theres loads of
No US Extradition (Score:3)
At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least it looks like Assange won't be extradited to the US in connection to any Wikileaks related investigation, as Sweden did not ask the UK court for onward extradition.
Uh, seriously? Once they have him in their hands it's all over. The USA invents some new charges and bingo, extradition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The U.S. wants him in prison. It serves their purposes even better if it's on rape charges (because those charges discredit him and tarnish his martyr status too). They don't just want him just taken out, they want him discredited. That's why they've been stirring up dissent among his former supporters too (some of whom [wikipedia.org] were likely plants sent in for this very purpose).
After all, why make him a martyr by dragging him to the U.S. and charging him with dubious espionage charges when you can send him to prison
Re:No US Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming of course that Sweden will follow the letter of the law.
It's perfectly possible Sweden will just ignore it's obligations and ship him to the US anyway. Why? Because a nice lucrative deal for their corporations in the US will be worth far more to them than a bit of fall out in Europe which will result in perhaps a few bullish exchanges, and then will be quickly forgotten.
That's really all the US has to offer Sweden- something to make it worthwhile for them, and as Sweden is such a small country, it's not too hard to do something that'll make a big impact. A $20bn trade deal might not be enough to sway countries like the UK or Germany into dodging their international obligations, but to Sweden it would've been enough to completely negate their annual economic contraction during the recent financial turmoil and then given them some growth on top.
Did more for Democracy in the Arab World (Score:4, Insightful)
...who has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of secret diplomatic cables on his website...
Maybe so, but I think he did more for moving the Arab World towards Democracy than the US ever did.
I mean think about this: food prices are going through the roof and people see, thanks to WikiLeaks, that their "leaders" are living high on the hog at their expense. I think they've seen (I hope) that their leaders played them for chumps by blaming the US for all their problems and at the same time, taking billions in foreign "aid" for the US so that the despots can fight against terrorism - our retarded Government actually believed that only the despots could fight against terrorism.
And I think the leaks have shown that some of their "revolutionary leaders" who are "standing up to" the US are nothing but liars and cheats.
If the charges are true, I would expect Assange to pay and if they are made up for whatever reason - government intrigue or for attention whoring - I hope that he is exonerated and the people behind the ruse are exposed and punished.
Re:Did more for Democracy in the Arab World (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly the U.S. government is angry about that, too. They just can't say it aloud.
Re: (Score:3)
And now _YOU_ can search the documents here [aftenposten.no] thanks to the Norwegian newspaper that got hold of the cables.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
On what charges? (Score:2)
But there are no charges in Sweden against Assange. Why didn't the defence lawyers bring this up? He is not formally accused of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I followed the Guardian's links and found this: "... the Swedish prosecutor has made it clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence before trial, he will be tried."
WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the case is still in the investigation phase. According to TFA:
They are returning him to Sweden, where they will finish their investigati
Re: (Score:3)
An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more.
Yet Sweden claims they're only interested in him for questioning, and have not yet charged him with anything... What you say about there only needing to be an investigation is not actually true.
Re:On what charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that Sweden gave him permission to leave the country. How could he skip town if they let him leave?
Re: (Score:3)
According to the judge in the UK, it sounds like he took steps to avoid contact with the investigators. It's entirely possible that his "permission to leave" was granted like so:
Mr. Assange: "Can I leave town?"
Swedish Police: "Sure, you can leave town. But we will probably want you to come back for further questioning."
Mr. Assange: "Okay, great, I'll be in London if you need me."
Re: (Score:3)
And I would think that if his lawyers were lying, people would be plastering such evidence all over the Internet.
"The Genie is Out of the Bottle" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Assange being prosecuted and imprisoned will encourage people, release him and the same will happen.
Even if that's true, they're probably banking that *fewer* people will be 'encouraged' if they manage to eventually execute him.
Doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Judgement (Score:3)
The Judgement [judiciary.gov.uk]
Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge: ... "I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden." Assange has seven days to appeal the decision.
He also said that Hurtig (Assange's Swedish Lawyer) is an "unreliable witness".
Ms Ny (Swedish Prosecutor) notified Mr Hurtiq at 0911 on September 27th that she had decided to arrest Assange, he left Sweden the afternoon of the same day ahead of schedule. Hurtiq claimed he was not told until 30th September."
Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. Judge states "In fact this is untrue", "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake." and "The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."
Mr Robertson, (Assenge's British Lawyer) accepted that onward extradition to Gitmo was without merit excluding it from final argument.
Judge final statement "In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden."
Why would the US government want him now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hey folks you know what? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's just one guy. wikileaks is larger than one man. assange knows this. you should know it to
it's a failure of most people that we get all caught up in the personalities, and forget the principles. it's true of anything political
say the USA lock assange up for the rest of his life. and? will that stop wikileaks? will that stop people from using wikileaks or bringing material to wikileaks? will that stop other wikileaks-like projects?
whatever!
the IDEA matters, the PERSON is irrelevant. assange would be the first to say this to you. they can do anything they want to him, they haven't destroyed his fame, and what made his name, and the idea he started
you can assassinate a man. you can smear his good name. but you can't stop HIS IDEA
THAT'S what is important
one man is brought down, but the cause continues unabated. i'm not afraid, are you afraid? i'm angered, are you angered?
so stop freaking out over the personality, focus on the principles. nothing's changed
Official ruling (pdf) (Score:3)
I haven't read it completely through yet, but it seems mostly reasonable. Assange's Swedish lawyer Hurtig is seen as unreliable and willfully deceiving. AT the very least he screwed up with some dates.
On (Brita Sundberg-Weitman's comments on) Marianne Ny:
She was then taken to the main passage of which complaint was made, where it says: âoeMarianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings (criminal prosecutions) have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convictedâ. She appeared to understand this passage as saying that everyone who is prosecuted is guilty and had difficulty in accepting that another interpretation is simply that there are occasions when a man is prosecuted and, for whatever reason, acquitted even though he may have been guilty. She did not appear to accept that there is a public interest in prosecuting, where the evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal. It appears that the witnessâ(TM)s main objection to the paragraph quoted was a reference to âoeperpetratorsâ on the basis that the word is objectionable and biased.
I'd disagree with the "there are occasions when"-interpretation here exactly because Ny only talks about "perpetrators". The main argument against her policy of having the accused in jail to provide comfort for the victim is that some people really are innocent, people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and she avoids that thought completely. Swedish original [domstol.se], pages 8-9 for the interested.
Translation from Swedish (Score:3)
Swedish original [domstol.se], pages 8-9 for the interested.
(Translation isn't really good English; I tried to be as literal as possible)
Only when the man is in custody (Swedish term translates to "freedom deprived") and the woman in calm and peace has the time to get some perspective on her life, she has a chance to discover how shes been treated.
Through the legal process ("lagforing", maybe "taking into the legal process"), the judiciary switches the responsibility onto the one who resorts to violence. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that the legal process has a good effect as protection for the woman, even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty ("domd", condemned?)
Note that there's half a page of text between these two paragraphs, so one can't really say omitting the first is obviously taking the second out of context.
Extradition Lawyer's assessment of the extradition (Score:3)
A few days back, a British extradition lawyer analysed the defence team's arguments in the Guardian: Julian Assange is very likely to be extradited, says Matrix barrister [guardian.co.uk].
Looks like he was right.
I hope he gets extradited (Score:3)
Personally, I hope he gets extradited to Sweden. Not because I think he's a bad guy or guilty of any crime but because it is the only way to see if the world is as bat-shit-crazy as he claims.
If he is extradited to Sweden and held until America makes up a good enough excuse to get him extradited to America, then I have to buy a bunker and stockpile cans of soup. I hope he's wrong but the only way to find out is to get him extradited.
In the best case, he's sent to Sweden, the prosecutor/court find the case to be way too weak/silly to proceed and he's set free. Then we can all go back to trusting the (Swedish) authorities and hope for a better future.
If not, then the world is much more scary than I thought and the chances of a war/rebellion/other are greater than I could ever imagine. Hence the bunker and soup.
Sacrificing Assange is a small price to pay to find out if the conspiracy theories are true.
Sorry, you are wrong. (Score:2)
The Egyptian revolt was led, among others, by Coptic Christians tired of being abused by Islamic fanatics while a tyrannical government won't lift a finger to defend them. The Moroccan dynasty is based on Sharia law and Islam, but still people are protesting there. And obviously the Iranian movement is about *less* power to Islamic authorities...
So I guess you don't know much about "People in North Africa" and what they fight for, after all, dear Coward.
Re: (Score:3)
two women discover each other, one suddenly decides to seek her 'options'. goes talks to police. no charges filed.
swedish prosecutor drops a case. another prosecutor also drops case.
right wing politician pressurizes the second prosecutor to reopen the case.
prosecutor fabricates a 'rape condition' as in 'if you have consentual sex two times, and in the second time your condom pops and you dont stop, its a rape
Yes, he is a computer expert? (Score:3)
He is? I was unaware.
You must be blind. This is well known stuff [wikipedia.org].
He wrote the first open source port scanner in 1995, and was contributing to PostgreSQL in 1996, and writing a plausible deniablility encryption system soon after.
He is far more of a computer expert than you will ever be.