Supreme Court Rules Julian Assange May Be Extradited 289
sirlark writes with an update on the protracted legal proceedings regarding Julian Assange's extradition to Sweden: "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offenses. The judgement was reached by a majority of five to two, the court's president, Lord Phillips, told the hearing. Mr Assange's legal team was given 14 days to consider the ruling before a final decision is made, leaving the possibility the case could be reheard."
This may, however, not be the end. From the article: "Lord Phillips said five of the justices agreed the warrant had been lawful because the Swedish prosecutor behind the warrant could be considered a proper 'judicial authority' even it they were not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements. This point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips, and two of the justices, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, had disagreed with the decision. But Ms Rose immediately indicated she could challenge the judgement saying that it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties should be implemented. She said this convention had not been raised during the hearing. " This led to the court staying the order until June 13th to give Assange's lawyers time to argue this avenue.
I'm confused (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they extraditing him for? Is he charged with any crime? This smells like bullshit to me.
It's total bullshit. The entire point here is that the United States wants to get him out of the UK so that he'll be easier to legally extradite back to the US so he can be tortured.... err, prosecuted, to the fullest extent of the law.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
"to the fullest extent of law."
Really?? since when does the extent of law matter in post-9/11 US ?
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Well considering the women dropped the charges, this is a lot of trouble for the Swedish government to go through to just ask some questions. Couldn't they have sent a prosecutor over to England to just ask questions?
I don't think you can dismiss it all as "conspiracy thinking" when it IS highly likely that he will be whisked off to the US the moment he lands on US soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and will take time
If there is one thing that governments do have, it's time.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe the Swedish cases against him is just a smear campaign meant to degrade his reputation, which in turn would degrade the reputation of Wikileaks. Most of the population isn't as well informed or cynical as we are here, and they do make associations such as head of organization is bad therefore organization must be bad too.
Once Assange has been sufficiently dragged through the mud he will be extradited to the US. At that point it won't matter what the US does to him most people won't care or will see it as a rapist getting what they deserve. It also won't matter what's posted on Wikileaks in the future because most people will pass it off as bad person spreading lies and discontent.
Of course none of us can actually see the future and this is entirely speculation and conspiracy theory. Only time will tell.
*tinfoil hat off*
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
So you're saying that the US cleverly arranged for radical Swedish feminists to pass bad rape laws, caused numerous cases to be prosecuted under those ridiculous laws
You've gone back much further than what my statement was about. I'm saying someone is possibly taking advantage of existing laws to do something under handed. I like your hat, but it seems to be made of wax paper instead of tinfoil.
All I can say is based on the material I've read, here on slashdot, various blogs and news sites, it seems the woman (singular) accusing Assange of rape willingly slept with him at the time of the allegations, but later brought charges against him. You can see the timeline article on the BBC here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341). I'm of the opinion that rape is when you use violence or drugs to force someone to have sex with you. That doesn't seem to be the case here. One of the women slept with Assange willingly, but later accused him of rape because he didn't use a condom.
Also of note, only one women accused him of rape. The other brought molestation charges against him. Both women knew each other and only after discussing their sexual encounters with Assange decided to bring charges against him. It's entirely possible that nether one alone had the courage to accuse Assange of anything, but after they talked about it they were able to draw on strength in numbers, which would be commendable, but I feel it's equally likely they're being paid off, or are conspiring to "scam" Assange as he is the head of a major organization, a poor one as I understand it, but still a major one.
Brilliant analysis!
Thanks!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be more like this:
Extradite to Sweden to interview him on allegations of rape and decide whether to press charges.
"Oh, I guess the accusations were baseless."
While still in custody, Justice Department requests extradition to the U.S.
They won't have to wait long.
Re: (Score:3)
At which point Sweden must go back to the UK and request a UK justice minister's approval to extradite on to a third party non-EU state.
European Arrest Warrants do not allow a state to "pass along" a person who's been extradited to them to a third party, especially a non-EU third party, without the express approval of the rendering state (in this case, the UK).
Which means that for the US to extradite him from Sweden, they have to get
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, because the US couldn't just ask the UK to extradite him. Makes perfect sense.
Oh, they asked ... but given the amount of publicity surrounding the case the UK couldn't just hand him over - it would be illegal.
OTOH, Sweden can hand him over. Read the section titled "Temporary surrender - under the US-Sweden Extradition Treaty" on this page. It might be much easier to transfer him from Sweden.
"...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:
b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. "
i.e. Get him into Sweden for one offense, "temporarily"* transfer him to the USA for a different offense.
[*] I'm guessing it won't be very temporary - they've got people in Guantanamo just for wearing the wrong sort of watch [wikipedia.org].
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
I really don't get these comments:
Why is Sweden easier to influence than the UK?
Why is Sweden more likely to extradite to the US?
What does the US want to extradite him for (specifically)?
Why does the US want him in Sweden given that:
1. there is clear evidence of the UK being complicit to some extent in extraordinary rendition cases to the US, yet - to my knowledge - no evidence of Sweden being involved.
2. the US has a much deeper intelligence and defence relationship with the UK than Sweden
3. the Swedish legal system is as, if not more, transparent and subject to due process and appeal as the UK one.
Have you ever been to Sweden or the UK? I have.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
It's on the Internet:
"1) Julian Assange has not been charged with any offense. 2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures."
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Julian is not a UK citizen, those caveats don't apply. There's nothing to stop the Swedes from handing-over Julian to the United Soviet States as soon as they get him into a prison.
Frankly I'm surprised Obama didn't just order him assasinated. He's done it before with other criminals (including American citizens and a 16-year-old boy).
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, those caveats do apply. Assange will be transferred under a European Arrest Warrant, and under the terms of the Warrant he cannot be transferred to another country without the permission of the country from which he is originally extradited (the UK in this case). Given the degree of opprobrium such a move would bring the UK Government, given that extraditions to the US are already a sensitive subject, then this would be extremely unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I can help you out as far as the American citizen. He may be referring to Anwar al-Awlaki [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The UK will 'forget' to do it in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
1) Which is why he's being extradited under a European Arrest Warrant. You know that your arrest can be ordered so you can answer questions as part of an investigation, especially if the court has ordered you to appear, and you fail to do so, right?
2) Completely false. European Arrest Warrants, as 'federal' documents governing the extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to Sweden, also come with the stipulation that the receiving country (Sweden) may not pass along an extradited individual without the ex
Re: (Score:3)
i.e. the FRA (Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment) was very happy to have nice crypto friends in the UK and USA as a trusted third party.
It takes a long time to make the US "third party" list outside Canada, Australia, the UK ect. and very little to drop from the list.
So really " transparent and subject to due process" is just window dressing.
Sweden has generations of political types who enjoyed deep intelligenc
Re: (Score:3)
No he has not been charged with a crime yet, he is however a suspect fro 2 counts of rape and the Swedish police wants to further interrogate him but Assange refused to return to Sweden so the Swedish authorities requested him to be extradited from UK in accordance with EU regulations which led to the current legal battle.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No he has not been charged with a crime yet, he is however a suspect fro 2 counts of rape
Um, no he isn't. Only the tabloid press has used the word "rape" (probably as part of a government organized campaign to ruin his credibility).
Rape victims rarely tweet about their experience and organize a party for their friends to meet the rapist so a charge of "rape" seems unlikely (although you never know...it wouldn't be any more absurd than the rest of this case).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should actually read up on what is considered rape according to Swedish law?
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
Why don't you save us all some effort and supply a simple citation?
Oh, wait, you can't. I'm guessing that's why you post A/C.
Me? I'll provide all the cites you want.
What they're trying to charge him with is sex by surprise [aolnews.com]. Nobody's quite sure what that is but we know the maximum penalty for it is a $715 fine.
This fine is why the whole Interpol warrant and extradition is a farce - it simply doesn't happen for a crime as minor as that (in fact it's against Interpol's charter to get involved with this - the crime is too minor and it only happened in a single country).
Re: (Score:3)
Once he's in the US he can be labelled an enemy and locked up forever. That's the point.
Re: (Score:3)
err, prosecuted, to the fullest extent of the law.
Considering that the "fullest extent of the law" includes assassination, sorry, "targeted killing", no no, "extrajudicial killing" by the US in certain countries like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and which everyone is quiet about because we are "told" it's happening to "bad people"; Assange could be in a world of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ask for the tapes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What are they extraditing him for?
For fucking with the U.S. government.
The story so far (Score:3, Informative)
Other than the lie... (Score:2)
What CIA connection do the women have?
Re: (Score:2)
they both like to cook?
(oops, sorry; wrong CIA).
Re: (Score:2)
And from this, we can learn the following valuable lessons:
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
While true in general, it wouldn't matter if your opponent is a State that will always find/pay some people ready to make false allegations for a smear campaign (I'm not saying that this is the case with Assange, even though something's fishy there). It's the oldest trick in the book, really.
Complete Bullshit (Score:2)
3.The cryptoanarchist goes to Sweden; while in Sweden, he has sex with women who have connections to the CIA.
There is absolutely no proof of this wild allegation.
Most likely, it is simply a case of two jilted women who are pissed off that Assange slept with both of them in the style of a rock star.
This bullshit about "CIA connections" with the ladies is paranoia and really unrelated to reality. It's tinfoil hat bullshit.
Folks, women get pissed of about shit like this *ALL THE TIME*, the difference in this case is the *target* is famous.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>rape apologetics
He is not being charged with rape. He is being charged with "not wearing a condom" during *consensual* sex. You would know that if you bothered to pull your head out of your schving-schving, learn to read the article, and educate yourself on the situation.
Re:The story so far (Score:5, Insightful)
It's conspiratorial thinking AND slut shaming AND rape apologetics
Right...any suggestion that a woman who files dubious rape charges did so at the behest of someone who is trying to smear someone is "slut shaming" and "rape apologetics." It is crazy think that there could be any sort of conspiracy against Wikileaks or Assange; it is not as if they have been publishing information that some of the most powerful organizations in the world were trying to keep secret, right?
In case you have forgotten, the charges against Julian Assange were already dropped by the original prosecutor in the case, due to a lack of evidence, and new charges have not even been filed. He is being extradited for an interrogation by a different prosecutor who is trying to revive the case, but who cannot even find enough evidence to do so. One of the "victims" threw a party in Assange's honor within 24 hours of supposedly being raped, and sang his praise on her Twitter account during that party. The two "victims" both publicly bragged about having spent a night with Assange after supposedly being raped. How many rape victims go around bragging about having had sex with their attacker?
I know it is hard, but feminists have to accept the fact that sometimes rape accusations are false and are made for the purpose of attacking a man's reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. I'd also add note that the original Swedish Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné publicly announced: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
There are regular prosecutions for false, maliciously motivated rape claims here in the UK, not that this will sway Ms RT from her blinkered world view.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the very first sentence of the linked BBC article:
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences.
I realize you asked about being charged with a crime and this mentions facing accusations. But that at least gives you the broad rationale.
Re: (Score:3)
sex crimes
A bogus crime that anyone in their right mind knows is just a laughably-obvious setup to get him for his real crimes.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
He's actually not charged with any crimes. As far as I know, he's to be questioned by the police as a suspect.
Note that I'm Swedish, meaning that a) I can read and understand what the Swedish prosecutor says, and b) I can not necessarily translate that to correct British or U.S. lawyerspeek.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, try to dig yourself out of that hole.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not accused of rape [aolnews.com].
Re: (Score:3)
No, he hasn't been accused of anything (as yet). He's wanted for questioning in relation to a reported crime, and without further questioning, the Swedish legal system cannot formally file charges (or dismiss the case).
Since he had left the country by that time, they ordered him detained "in absentia," and issued a european arrest warrant for him on suspicion of some degree of rape, and a couple counts of "sexual misconduct" or "harassment," depending on the translation.
If he is extradited, and the investi
Re: (Score:2)
Extradition or not, its kind of hard to discuss the charges when there aren't any isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't he answer questions from the UK? (as he's offered to do)
Why can't they even tell him what it is that they want to question him about...?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought his reason for not going back was that he had spoken to them once, the charges were seen as obviously baseless, but then the US determined that they could use this to get there hands on Assange, and therefor he wisely has declined a second round of questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He hasn't been accused of rape. He still might be a rapist, of course, but he's neither been accused nor charged with it. This has nothing to do with Lewinsky, AGW or uncomfortable facts.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
No, he wasn't, and hiding one's action doesn't make a consensual sexual act into rape in Sweden. There's rape, våldtäkt, and there's 'sexuellt tvång', which is still more serious than what Assange has been accused of, but not rape.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
"Rape" in Sweden is not the same as rape elsewhere.
What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
I don't even know how you're supposed to prove such a thing. How do you prove the guy, over a year ago, had sex without a condom? You can't go by the two women's word, because they could be lying. It's an unprovable case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Assange's story..The women tell another. Both women told Assange that they were OK with protected sex but not unprotected sex, had relations with him once, fell asleep & woke up t-o him initiating a second round unprotected. Both women attempted to stop him but he overpowered them. Neither pressed charges initially but did so when meeting days later when they discovered that Assange had pulled the same trick on them both.
Under Swedish law, the acts as described by the women are rape.
Re: (Score:3)
Will the actual details as presented in the European Arrest Warrant [bailii.org] suffice?
For somebody who's "read them all," how exactly did you miss the press release summarizing today's judgement, as well as the judgement itself [guardian.co.uk], which details this information?
Have you just been re-reading Joce640k's AOL News link that he's been spamming all over this article, and assuming that's the only information available?
Re: (Score:3)
You can't go by ...
Brilliant! Adding this to the list...
-You can't go by the two women's word, because they could be lying.
–cpu6502
-What if Truth were a woman? What then?
-In revenge and in love woman is more barbaric than man is.
–Friedrich Nietzsche
-I have seen too much not to know that the impression of a woman may be more valuable than the conclusion of an analytical reasoner.
–Sir Arther Conan Doyle
-The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer,
Even if he's a rapist, it doesn't look like rape (Score:2)
I can totally understand that. It makes sense that a lot of people (and I'm certainly not immune) would run into a reasoning flaw caused by this.
Nevertheless, the "rape" charge really does look like either bullshit or a bizarre Swedish technicality, so it's kind of infuriating. Even if he really were an actual rapist, the allegations against him sound nothing like what most people would think of
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the problem: the people who built him up to be a hero cannot believe that he might also be a rapist. It's kind of like the persistent denial hardcore Clinton backers had over the Lewinski matter
What? Denial of Lewinski? I think Clinton backers couldn't care less where he stuck his wang.
As for Assuage potentially being a rapist... well, well, well... it is possible. It's likely bullshit. You just got to look at the unusual proceedings for that. (The case was closed and then re-opened for some mysterious reason.)
If some swedish prosecutor wants to ask him questions, then I recommend the telephone. Obviously this isn't about asking questions, is it.
Gee there's a surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see what he and his attorneys hoped to gain from fighting the extradition. The merit of the case in Sweden is another matter, but that isn't something an extradition court will decide. They don't try the case, they just decide if the request for extradition is a legal one, meets the standards for whatever agreement there is with said nation and so on.
In the case of the UK and Sweden there's a pretty strong extradition treaty so there really wasn't any way there's be another outcome.
Even if he manage
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are no charges. He's only wanted for questioning.
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
So...why can't he answer the questions from the UK - as he's offered to do since the very beginning?
Extradition is for serious crimes, not "questioning".
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
There are no charges. He's only wanted for questioning.
Which is pretty much irrelevant, to both the GP's post and the court's decision. You don't have to be charged with a crime to be extradited, normally being wanted for questioning as a suspect is good enough. It's all up to their extradition treaty with Sweden. The GP's point was that the court's responsibility was to make sure the request complied with their extradition treaty, and that's it. Whether or not the accusations are sound, whether or not charges are filed, whether or not he's guilty - that's all between Assange and the Swedes.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why much of his argument has been about the validity of the extradition request. The other big point is that if he were extradited his human rights may be breached if he is then extradited/rendered to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from what I've heard from the man. He's been screaming that he shouldn't be extradited because:
- It's all a plot by the USG
- The USG will extradite him from Sweden once he leaves the UK (never ind that extradition to the US would be easier from the UK)
- He claims he's innocent so he shouldn't be extradited.
- Leaving the UK would be an enormous hardship for him.
On the merits of the case: "does the Swedish extradition request meet the requirements for an extradition" he's been well nigh silent as the cour
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably just to draw attention to how ridiculous, trumped-up and politically-motivated these nasty allegations against him are. Assange knows that the people behind this are hugely powerful and are not fighting fair, his only weapon is publicity. Fighting every little thing tooth and nail, with press releases all along the way, is about all he can do.
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
It really has gotten to the point of rather silly. He's going to have to go and face the charges in Sweden.
It's sillier than you think: as yet there are still no charges he has to face in Sweden. My understanding is that he is wanted for questioning only. The first prosecutor in Sweden tossed the case because there was no evidence. Somehow, a second prosecutor has gotten involved, and has put in this unprecedented request for extradition for "questioning" while there still have been no civil or criminal charges laid against him by the Swedish police.
And let's also not forget that while Assange was in Sweden, he tried to comply with police requests as much as possible, to the point of saying to the Swedish police, "OK, I'm leaving the country now, is there anything else I have to do to help sort this out?" He left Sweden thinking that this was all over and done with.
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
And let's also not forget that while Assange was in Sweden, he tried to comply with police requests as much as possible, to the point of saying to the Swedish police, "OK, I'm leaving the country now, is there anything else I have to do to help sort this out?" He left Sweden thinking that this was all over and done with.
In addition, Assange offered to answer questions by Swedish police over video chat or telephone while he was in the UK. He was refused, lending strong evidence to the idea that the purpose of the extradition request was not actually to answer the Swedish charges against him but instead to have him in physical custody so he could be shipped to the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't "do a runner", he asked permission to leave and it was granted.
Re: (Score:2)
would usually imply that he's more likely to be extradited from the UK than Sweden. Sweden is an open, liberal democracy, the UK would hand him over to the US in a heartbeat.
The next couple of weeks will let you know if you're right...
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly even they were pissed off he did a runner from the country whilst under investigation for a serious crime?
Rape is a serious cime. Failure to wear a condom during consensual sex with two women who later met each other and /then/ decided to sue... is not a serious crime.
/not/ "do a runner" on Sweden. He fronted up at the police office and told them he was leaving the country, and if there was anything he could do to help with closing the case, which was already closed. Then, later, another prosecutor opens the case and invokes an extradition treaty for "questioning".
/obvious
And Assuage did
And questions can
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what he and his attorneys hoped to gain from fighting the extradition.
They know the fix is in in Sweden. They know that if he goes to Sweden, he's fucked. Either Sweden is setting him up for a bogus prison sentence there or, more likely, extradition to the U.S. for "indefinite detention."
Mental disconnect in your .sig (Score:2)
As opposed to people like Assange?
You haven't a clue about what slavery really is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if you succeed in getting rid of the government and creating a "utopia" where the rich and powerful rule like kings--we're certainly all going to find out.
Rich and powerful don't rule like kings without governments creating and defending the corporations that allow that to happen. Intended cause and effect.
But perhaps you have a counterexample.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Assange is a contrarian, not a libertarian
Actually, he is most likely a cryptoanarchist, judging by his behavior and use of cryptography to fight governments and large corporations, as well as his involved with the cypherpunks community in the 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what he and his attorneys hoped to gain from fighting the extradition.
We all do know that the extradition is a crock of poo, the accusations are obviously trumped-up, and that there's something else going on.
Whatever it it is, it's probably the US government behind it's probably very bad for him. Anybody with any sense would fight it.
Re:Gee there's a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really not sure what they were going for, other than just a delaying tactic.
If you fear for your life, delaying is what you would do too.
Assange and his lawyers are probably not that scared of the crimes he could potentially be charged with in Sweden. It is more likely that he is afraid that Sweden will in turn find a way to export him to the U.S., where he could be accused of being some sort of terrorist. We have recently seen somewhat too close ties between the U.S. embassy and the judges here, when the case about The Pirate Bay took place, so I don't think one has to be too paranoid to fear such a chain of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what if the state is wrong and you are more correct to actually avoid such a state?
more and more, this is the reality. governments are becoming the bad guys and regular people are being targeted by corrupticians.
I wonder if your premise does make sense. I'm not sure it does make any sense, in truth. maybe its better to allow 'runners' to leave what they consider bad domains and find safe haven elsewhere.
I can name plenty of bad regimes where it would be quite morale to 'run away' from them. isn't it a c
And (Score:5, Funny)
I'd just like to be the first to say welcome to the U.S. Mr. Assange. How was your brief visit to Sweden?
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal was indeed to get him to the US, it would be easier to extradite him from the UK due to the special extradition treaties in effect between the US and the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if US officials aren't at the airport in Sweden waiting for him, with a page of trumped up waffle with a scary looking TLA agency seal on the top of the page.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm doing this more often, nowadays. I need to spend less time around knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when has "been to the US" been a requirement for Extradition? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Abu Hamza hasn't visited the US either, yet he's soon to be extradited there from the UK.
The same goes for Babar Ahmad.
About about a dozen others.
Prior visit to the US is not a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal was indeed to get him to the US, it would be easier to extradite him from the UK due to the special extradition treaties in effect between the US and the UK.
You'd think so...but there's obviously something deeper going on that nobody knows about.
I guess we'll find out what it is in the next couple of weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
lets have fun. Who wants to bet that while Assange is in flight to the US, there is a "plane crash" over the ocean. No bodys can be recovered, and no one knows about this guy spending the rest of his days being taught about what happens when you mess with the wrong crowd, as he is obviously "dead".
Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (Score:3)
Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, the CIA's 21st century equivalent of assassination is the rape charge. Just ask Dominique Strauss Kahn. A few months after he began criticizing [guardian.co.uk] the value of the U.S. dollar as international currency, he became a rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the US, Dominique Strauss Kahn happily admits to being a sexual predator (he is French after all) it's just that he claims his conquests are consensual whereas some of the women involved don't. I'm pretty sure Julian has said similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile wikileaks is distracted ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This alleged rape case has meant that rape is what people think about when they hear about wikileaks - rather than the crimes/... that wikileaks has exposed. Wikileaks itself has also taken its eyes off the ball.
As a way of diverting attention from the real issues the rape case & extradition has been very successful.
One of the better articles posted (Score:3)
From the above:
From the Wikileaks statement released in advance of the ruling:
* The US Grand Jury reportedly possesses a sealed indictment, which could be used to extradite Assange to the United States.
* Secret subpoenas have been served on ISPs and online services for the private data of WikiLeaks staff and supporters.
* Special task-forces have been setup by various various US intelligence agencies, including the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and the US State Department.
* Associates of WikiLeaks have been detained and interrogated at US and UK airports, their equipment confiscated, and attempts have been made to turn them into informants.
* If the indictment is unsealed upon Assange's extradition to Sweden he faces further removal from Sweden to the United States.
* Meanwhile, an unprecedented extralegal denial of service by Visa and Mastercard has cut off funding to WikiLeaks, almost shutting down WikiLeaks' publishing activity.
* If the extradition to Sweden is quashed in the outcome of the court judgement, he faces extradition from the United Kingdom.
* Both Swedish and UK governments have been coordinating with the US, taking steps to facilitate a US extradition request in either eventuality. Assange cannot take steps to avoid either risk. For 539 days he has been detained without charge in the UK under house arrest.
* Under US pressure the Australian government has relaxed its own extradition law, smoothing any possible extradition from Assange's home country. The Gillard government has also amended legislation to give Australian intelligence agencies powers of surveillance over WikiLeaks supporters.
Re: (Score:3)
H'e suspected of a crime in Sweden and refused to return for interrogation so the Swedish authorities requested that he be extradited from the UK to Sweden so the investigation can be finished.
Re: (Score:2)
suspected of a crime
refused to return for interrogation
People are expected to alter their travel schedules to be interrogated? The case was initially dropped for lack of evidence -- so what is the purpose of demanding that he be flown to Sweden for a special "interrogation?"
so the investigation can be finished.
They need to talk to him just to finish the investigation? Is Sweden not a country where people have the right to remain silent? They must have difficulty finishing their investigations when suspected criminals refuse to answer police questions...
Re: (Score:2)
They need to talk to him just to finish the investigation? Is Sweden not a country where people have the right to remain silent? They must have difficulty finishing their investigations when suspected criminals refuse to answer police questions...
Oh, you have the right to remain silent, but you still need to show up. Common advice to those who get busted for minor narcotics charges is to answer all questions with "inga kommentarer" ("no comments") since you will gain nothing from saying anything to the cops, better to have your story straight for court (especially since, just like all cops, Swedish cops have been known to get the interrogation reports way wrong and will then claim that what's on paper must've been what you said because it's what the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UK... (Score:4, Insightful)
the alleged sexual offences happened in Sweden. It's not as if they want to try him on some nebulous charges
I must admit, it is easy to forget an important detail: the original prosecutor dropped the case entirely, citing a lack of evidence. Sounds pretty nebulous to me...
Re: (Score:3)
Ten years ago? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)