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.
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 ?
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 managed to stop it on a technicality of something like the prosecutor not being the right person to be able to request the extradition, Sweden would just go and make a more formal request through their ambassador.
Among countries with strong extradition treaties about the only time it gets denied is if it is a crime they just don't extradite for (minor crimes are often things that they won't) or if the punishment isn't something they'll allow. That has happened with the US and Canada. Canada won't extradite for capital crimes, they aren't ok with the death penalty. So the US has to agree not to seek it, and then the extradition will go ahead.
It really has gotten to the point of rather silly. He's going to have to go and face the charges in Sweden. If they'll stick is a whole different matter, but that is up to the Swedish courts. You don't get to just run to another country and hide from criminal charges, particularly in Europe. What with a bunch of countries near each other and fairly easy borders, they understand the importance of such things.
I'm really not sure what they were going for, other than just a delaying tactic.
Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
What are they extraditing him for?
For fucking with the U.S. government.
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:I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should actually read up on what is considered rape according to Swedish law?
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, 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: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...
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.
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: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: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: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:I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
I've read them all, and there was no mention of what you said above in any of them.
So to echo the other guy: citation needed. Burden of proof and all that.