Assange loses extradition appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18260914

by morsch • 14 years ago

121 40 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

morsch2• 14 years ago

The Guardian has some live coverage, but I figured the Beeb is a more authoritative source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assa...

metatronscube• 14 years ago

If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day.

Thanks for the link.

bobsy• 14 years ago

I have no opinion on what is happening to Assange. I don't know enough facts. I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.

I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court?

Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.

gouranga• 14 years ago

They are the ones that actually went through the legal system.

It doesn't always happen.

Look at all the cases of extraordinary rendition over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

rickmb• 14 years ago

> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.

Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right?

And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough.

You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.

retrogradeorbit• 14 years ago

> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though.

You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts.

You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker.

Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).

chris123• 14 years ago

One step closer to Gitmo, one step closer to 1984 on steroids.

jgrahamc• 14 years ago

This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of.

He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.

morsch2• 14 years ago

I think this is pretty much the average position on HN.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

I'm fine with it, as long as he's not extradited to US, and the Court and prosecution doesn't turn out to be very corrupt there.

redthrowaway• 14 years ago

"Technical grounds", in this case, means "the extradition request was never written by anyone the UK considers to be a valid authority". In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court based its ruling on treaties that neither party had argued over or been informed would be germane. Thus, there'll likely be another appeal before anything happens.

The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window.

People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.

sneak2• 14 years ago

Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans.

The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...

As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.

peterstjohn• 14 years ago

I still don't understand this, though. Under the US-UK extradition treaty (signed into law in the UK in 2003, in the US in 2006, I think), all the US has to do is provide the UK with reasonable suspicion that Assange committed a crime within the US, and the British would hand him over. Is the Swedish extradition treaty vastly different?

lolcraft• 14 years ago

Agree, this is ridiculous:

> But Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said she could challenge the Supreme Court's decision because it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties - such as those concerning extradition - should be implemented, and this had not been discussed during the hearing.

Watch and see. Now his lawyer will put into question the very meaning of implementing an international treaty. All in order to prevent a possible rapist, who just happens to be just a little less famous than Polanski, from being charged. Only the Chewbacca defense could make this sillier.

okamiueru3• 14 years ago

You do know the circumstances around the "accusation" right? I mean, it seems to me some people here are willfully ignorant. I despise willful ignorance. Assange hasn't been charged with any crime. If you looked at the actual circumstances, you would find the comparison to Polanski who indeed raped a 13 year old girl, is highly unfair, if not for a lack of word, stupid. Oh, and the sex was consensual according to the women... though because of Swedish legal definitions, it can still technically be called rape.

The tweets of the two women in question expressed ulterior motives for going to the police. They also made tweets that contradict the "rape". Not only that, but the Swedish prosecutor named Assange publicly before having stood trial (and if you're not aware of it, the accused of rape cases is to be anonymous until he has been found guilty... if not, defamation becomes all too easy).

It all smells so fishy, and I have no idea why people on HN don't think highly of him. That they would fall for such an obvious smear campaign, well.. I'm disappointed. WikiLeaks is probably one of the very few journalistic entities that fulfill the important role journalism was intended to have in a democracy. The majority of other news are regurgitated and preprocessed opinions on unimportant events. The bread an circus for the masses, if you will.

---

Now that said, the thing I don't understand is why he doesn't willingly go to Sweden to get rid of the bullshit trials (note that it was already called such by the Swedish prosecutor who threw away the case). Perhaps it is based on principle? That the whole extradition is based on no real reason? That the reason provided for the extradition (questioning regarding the case), does not engender confidence, since alternative ways of doing an interview (webcam, etc) were suggested and rejected by the Swedish authorities.

tomjen3• 14 years ago

Yes because anybody who has been accussed of rape is clearly guilty. And a child molester.

vidarh6• 14 years ago

> All in order to prevent a possible rapist,

... who might just be innocent, in which case he has every reason to be paranoid about why they are pursuing him in this manner and why they are so concerned about getting him into a Swedish jail immediately instead of taking up the offer of questioning him in London.

He has plenty of reason to fight extradition whether or not he's innocent.

And FWIW, in my opinion the comparison to Polanski, given the different nature of the cases, borders on defamation.

vidarh6• 14 years ago

It is worth pointing out that there is a warrant out for his arrest to question him on suspicion.

He has not been charged with an offense.

This distinction is mostly left out in the news coverage.

And the arrest warrant was as far as I know was made at the behest of the police and prosecutor without a formal complaint from either of the women. At least the accounts I've seen indicate that the women came to the police jointly to ask for advice on whether or not they could demand and AIDS test of him, and described the situation in such terms that the police decided to get him in for questioning based on their own suspicions despite the fact that another prosecutor had closed the case because she believed there was no indication a crime had been committed.

Based on that he faces a substantial risk of jail without bail possibly for months on end because they have preferred to spend a year and a half on a lengthy legal process instead of taking up past offers of interviewing him about the case in London.

Conspiracy or not, there seems to be more big egos and agendas involved than Assanges, and in those circumstances anyone should be wary about going back voluntarily.

Maybe he is guilty. Maybe he's a horrible person. But guilty or not, if the situation is the way I've seen it described, I'd fight tooth and nail to stay out of Sweden too.

wvenable• 14 years ago

> It's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there.

But he already did. He stayed, he was questioned, and then he asked if he could leave Sweden, they said yes, and he left. Then another prosecutor unrelated to the original case wants him back for further questioning.

To be honest, I don't think it's an unpopular opinion and it was my opinion until I looked into things further. However, once you know all the facts, it seems very suspicious or, at least, unnecessary.

fusiongyro3• 14 years ago

I agree with you. It's very hard to defend Assange's actions without appealing to paranoia. If he didn't commit the crimes, he ought to behave as though he has nothing to be afraid of. His flight from law is becoming a bigger story than the actual accusations--it's hard to look innocent while fleeing the authorities. If he really did nothing wrong, the appropriate place to prove it is in court, not on HN.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

Should Dalai Lama turn himself in to the Chinese authorities, too?

Even if Assange was completely innocent, that wouldn't stop the US Government from trying to put him in a cell next to Bradley Manning for 2 years, if they were really pissed off at him. These days when you piss of the top hierarchy of the US Government, you're guilty until proven innocent.

sp332• 14 years ago

Fleeing authorities? He's under house arrest with a monitoring anklet and has to sign in at a police station every day. The authorities know where he is every second.

glogla• 14 years ago

Are you actually saying "one who has done nothing wrong has nothing to fear"? That looks little too naive in this world.

dlitz• 14 years ago

If Assange's appeal succeeds, doesn't it just mean they can still try to convince a Swedish judge to make a new extradition request? Is that too much to ask for?

token78• 14 years ago

My sense is that while people across the world are polarised in their opinions of Assange himself, there's still a lot of disquiet about the question of his (potential/likely?) deportation to the U.S. only to face a Grand Jury, as opposed to due process, the rule of law, and a properly constituted court.

As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.

Assange loses extradition appeal

Related Stories