Assange™ can request final hearing against Swedish extradition Julian Assange can request a final appeal against his extradition to Sweden, judges ruled this morning. They accepted that the WikiLeaks founder could ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal on the grounds of "general public importance". Technically, the High Court in fact refused to let Assange have the right to …
Maybe Assange can sell the rights to the inevitably one sided and horrifically over simplified 'movie' deal that will no doubt already have been cast in some directors mind, to pay for his ongoing defence in this huge, humiliating, multi-government stitch-up job.
As for Manning...poor bastard.
"huge, humiliating, multi-government stitch-up job"
Insert: roll on floor laughing arse off. Good heavens, anonymous individual you, he's been to court, after court after court after ... and so far the justice system has all disagreed with him. He's got another round to go in the UK, then a potential round in the EU, THEN - tho it ain't likely it'll get past the interviews - to a Swedish one ...
And ALL of it happens in the newspapers, in blogs, on the telly, on twitter ... it ain't exactly subtle, it ain't very hidden, and damned but it is a fine example of exactly HOW many days in court one fellow can get if he's tenacious enough, has the funds, and get well laywered up.
Sure. He might be found guilty even if he is innocent. Mistakes do happen, but with the amount of focus on this case you really, really, really think it is a stitch-up job?
No flames for you, only hollering of laughter.
"huge, humiliating, multi-government stitch-up job"
Yes, that is exactly what I for one think it is. And it's not remotely funny. Where is the mention of it being hidden? It's not hidden, it's happening right in front of your face and you still can't see it, because far from being the smart and savy chap who laughs down his nose at people you are in fact a naif.
Do you *really* imagine the US are not going to try and extradite him from Sweden in way they could not from the UK?
"Do you *really* imagine the US are not going to try and extradite him from Sweden in way they could not from the UK?"
As it would be far easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden ... uh ... duh ... well ... ok. I'll concede that my impression of US government intelligence is pretty low, so hell yeah! Why do it the EASY way (US -> US speed extradition treaties) when we CAN do it the difficult way (US -> Sweden extradition treaty which include having to ask the UK first)?
Yep. You're right. It's a bloody conspiracy! Besides, they'll probably just break the law and have him shipped out in secret from Sweden, and noone will ever know or care. Yep. That makes sense. I'm such a naif.
Put a stopper in your gob, why don't you? Swedish government officials are no better or worse than most others, but sending him to the US without it being perfectly legal, RIGHT now, would burn'em, and burn'em good. Doing it on the sly? Fine. They probably would, at that.
"Besides, they'll probably just break the law and have him shipped out in secret from Sweden"
Just keep fighting that straw man Windrose. I noticed that in your first comment you also used the voice of your imagined opponent. Easier to do battle with a caricature is it?
You imagine that somehow that the justice system is susceptible to only errors of noise ("mistakes") and cannot systematically fail or be corrupted. That is the most extreme kind of magical thinking.
I can but speculate, however maybe if you'd read more of the leaked information that Assange has helped bring to light you might find the claims that he is being "got at" more credible.
Such a polite commenter, "Put a stopper in your gob, why don't you"?
Classy Windrose, classy.
In cases such as this one, where so many political, media, military & vested interest figures will be left vulnerable from any potential fall out, I am less inclined to believe that the (normally disorganised) powers can't pull together to achieve a beneficial outcome.
As someone already pointed out, the fact that this is happening in view of the public eye, makes it even more ridiculous.
If you actually read the extradition treaties, TIAS 10812 only resists extradition for Sweden citizens in Sweden (whereas the UK/US treaties offers protection for UK and commonwealth citizens, as Assange is Australian the extradition is problematic for the US, Australia is, despite some resistance, a commonwealth country).
My guess is that they'll use an earlier agreement, TIAS 1546 (14 UST 1845) article II.7 as burglary with intent to commit a felony is mentioned as an extraditable offence, possibly II.11 blackmail/extortion, II.14 receiving money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been embezzled, stolen or fraudulently obtained. - it's a mine of possible extradition excuses.
So, yes, if Assange goes back to Sweden he's at risk of being extradited to the US, which at the moment because he's in the UK, he isn't.
This post has been deleted by its author
He can't be tried anywhere but Sweden, because what he is accused of (not using a condom when he said he would) is not a crime anywhere else in the world, this "crime" is rape in Sweden, note that even the prosecution admit the sex itself was consensual and none of the text conversations between the accusers after the event say or imply rape (not even under Swedens defintion), under the broadest defintion, if you lay one single finger on a woman when she is asleep it could be defined as rape (regardless of what she agreed to before she fell asleep, if you are in a long-term relationship, or in fact where you touch her).
Normally, with this complete lack of evidence the case would be dropped, more so as the accusations came much later, the two accusers were also in discussions before reporting to the police, it is exceptional for Sweden to request extradition for this crime, more so given the circumstances, and unheard of for it to be applied to an Australian.
Whether or not you agree if it's a "huge, humiliating, multi-government stitch-up job" or not is irrelevant, the circumstances of this case are exceptional, somebody is working very hard to get Assange back to Sweden more than any similar case ever before, so why? do you think that the (unrelated) Wikileaks activity might have something to do with it?
Don't get we wrong, I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories (usually as they are humourous), but this makes no sense at all unless you consider there's an ulterior motive.
Nope.
He has one last shot at the UK. Then he's off to Sweden, or Australia.
That is if he loses his appeal against the EAW, he's then on a plane back to Sweden where he will face charges. (People seem to think that this is just so that they will interview him. Its not. Its so that they can officially charge him with rape.)
If he wins, then its up to the UK to see if he can stay or if he gets the boot back to Australia.
This will depend on agreements within the commonwealth between Australia and the UK. I mean when all said and done, if Australia decides his passport is no longer valid, he'll end up getting bounced back to Australia.
Again, that's speculation. I don't know the law concerning what happens when someone outlasts their welcome.
Assange can't really travel anywhere in the EU.
Just because the UK doesn't want to honor the EAW, doesn't mean that other countries wont.
I am assuming that the EAW is still out on Assange and is still active. So if Julian wants to pop down to Spain or France, whips out his passport... oops! He's back in jail awaiting extradition.
It really doesn't make sense why he's fighting this. He's already a convicted felon in Australia, unless of course his record was wiped because he was a juvenile? (Again I don't know Aussie laws)
You're right. this isn't a 'stitch up' job. Way too sloppy. Even the CIA couldn't bungle it this bad.
Just pray that Julian doesn't piss off the KGB or the Russian mobs. Unlike the US, they don't mess around.
Right back at ''cha. There's been so much publicity surrounding this that the courts can't get away with anything.
And who doubts that if this was anyone else, Assange would have been extradited to Sweden by now? Does anyone doubt that anyone else would already been extradited? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
For crying out loud, the British legal system is practically standing on it's head, bending over backwards, and just being plain silly to accommodate each and every request by Assange.
Assange will not be tried in England. He is being EXTRADITED. The only thing England needs to do is verify that it is a legal and valid extradition order.
But those of you that want England to decide if Assange is guilty of any crime in Sweden - that would be a blatant and horrible violation of the boundaries of international law
Of course, those that support Assange don't care about the law, do you?
Do you realize that this entire mess is all Julian's own doing?
Seriously...
Had he not absconded from Sweden with the assistance of his lawyer, he would have been charged and had his trial.
The most likely outcome... he is found guilty and told he has 48 hours to leave the country.
The downside is that Julian would have had to give up any aspirations of being a Swede. I seriously doubt that Sweden would welcome a convicted rapist as a citizen.
The issue is that good ol Julian brought this whole disaster upon himself. He and his paranoid imagination that the US is out to get him... Oh yes, dear Julian did piss off the US, except that his fantasy of men in black ninja outfits capturing him off the streets and in to an unmarked white jet to be taken where only god knows?... Sorry, that's his fantasy. The US is still doing their investigation in to Manning. They are methodical in putting the pieces together. Then they use their might of Law and international trade to go after someone.
Sorry to disappoint you and Julian.
Maybe if he just hops the plane to Sweden he'll get it over with more quickly so he can then fly back to Australia in to his mother's arms?
"So goes to show you that if the victim refuses to press charges that big brother always will."
Where do you get the idea that the alleged victims of the alleged crime have recanted and refused to press charges?
They did in fact file a formal complaint with the police. However, Assanage's lawyer allowed Assange to leave by claiming that he was in communication with his client yet that the prosecution wasn't in contact with him so Julian was free to leave the country.
This of course was refuted and recanted by Julian's Swedish attorney while in court under oath in the UK.
I'd love to see an article where the alleged victims said anything at all about this situation. And I think that if they had recanted, then Assange's lawyers would have been all over those statements and would have used them in court.
Sorry, I call BS on your comment.
This post has been deleted by its author
We're passed the period for which you can object to the trademark, so has it now been awarded? Shouldn't he now either be Assange® or just Assange? Perhaps someone challenged it? I've been told by a copyright lawyer that it won't stand up to a challenge, as you can't trademark your name for specific services.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
