Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal

beaverdownunder writes "Julian Assange has won the right to submit an appeal of his extradition to Sweden on 'public interest' grounds. He now has two weeks to come up with a convincing argument for Britain's Supreme Court. From the article: 'The judges ruled that Mr Assange's case is of general public importance, but the Supreme Court could still refuse to hear his case. Mr Assange now has 14 days to formally lodge an appeal, meaning his stay in Britain, where he has been staying since his arrest in December last year, is certain to stretch into 2012.'"

Public interest?

[bhcompy]

So being famous lets you get another appeal?

Might just be replying to a troll, but ....

[King_TJ]

I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?

From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.

Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an unsavory individual like hm to risk such an undertaking in the first place? The law of the land should work objectively, not subjectively based on peoples' opinions of the individuals being charged with crimes.

Re:Public interest?

[king neckbeard]

I suspect that extradition treaties don't often go into great detail on what offences receive extradition and what ones don't. They might have some clear cut rules about meeting a certain level of fine or sentence, but it seems like the kind of issue that largely boils down to 'good faith' that the country seeking the extradition will use it sparingly for only the most heinous of crimes.