×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

The Courts 144

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

144 comments

First he has to win this appeal... (3, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265422)

... and only then will he be truly safe!

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265462)

Not really. If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265492)

He can always go to the United States. Extradition to Sweden would be the least of his problems.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265632)

Fuck yeah!! Go Assange Gooo! WOOHOOO, you're my hero!

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265606)

If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.

That does include Australia. If he wins the appeal, the only way he goes home again is if he just goes to Sweden and stands trial.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2004C00142

Sweden also has extradition treaties with the rest of the EU, the US, and Canada. New Zealand doesn't even require an extradition treaty for another country to submit an extradition request. So if Assange ever wanted to live outside the UK again, he wouldn't have many First-world options left.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (5, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265734)

Most countries only extradite criminals. The main point is that he is only wanted for questioning and there has been no suggestion of there being a charge ready. Britain should not have arrested him as there are no valid grounds for that. If there was an charge pending then yes but there is not. The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265938)

The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???

The US and UK are having disagreements about extradition laws these days. The US recently passed a law saying we would never extradite anyone for a libel case since the UK has fucked up libel laws, for example, but that's hardly the first shot.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (4, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266036)

We Brits do have a legal process and it is being followed to the letter in this case. That the case now looks likely to go to the Supreme Court is pretty good evidence of that (implying, indeed, rather more scrutiny than you might get around a "normal" extradition case). The thing with a legal process is that it will sometimes produce decisions you like, and sometimes produce decisions you don't. That's normal - not evidence of a conspiracy at work.

There are elements of the case that are worrying (though more in general than wikileaks-specific terms), but both the Swedish and UK legal systems do seem to be "working as intended".

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266144)

oh god, don't tell me Bobby Kotick's running the UK and Sweedish Justice systems...

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (4, Insightful)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266724)

If I were him, I'd be concerned about any travel, even if the destination fits your description. The reason is that the people he has pissed off are powerful enough that they may well trump up an emergency landing in some country that would extradite him. I don't even think they would work much at hiding it . . . something like a flight from London to Paris making an emergency landing in Oslo . . . the idea being that the emergency landing isn't anywhere near a straight line between points A and B.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268062)

If they're done with the subtle, the London-Paris flight may as well make an emergency landing in Washington DC and save a trip.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266736)

The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???

Why? Because your entire premise is wrong in the first place.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266886)

Most countries only extradite criminals...

Actually, countries generally are required by treaty to extradite anyone for whom the requesting country has issued a valid arrest warrant regarding a crime so they can be held over for trial--you don't have to have a conviction in hand to request extradition, just a warrant. And once presented with a valid arrest warrant, the country receiving the warrant is required by treat to arrest and detain the accused to ensure that extradition occurs. For logistical and political reasons it doesn't always work out that way, and most countries don't even bother requesting extradition unless the crime in question is a pretty serious felony; but that's the letter of the law in most cases.

Also note that, under some treaty provisions, an uncooperative person not accused of a crime can be extradited as a material witness to a crime if the crime in question is considered sufficiently serious. And in the US, unindicted suspects who have fled the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred can also be extradicted from another state and held over if indictment is imminent (i.e. the district attorney has declared his intention to indict to the court and now it's just a matter of filing the paperwork). I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of Swedish law, but something similar might be happening here.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (3, Informative)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269038)

And 2 women that both admit consenting to sex with him, and maybe sorta possibly having second thoughts during the act is a serious felony? (note that neither women screamed NO or fought or do anything that would CLEARLY tell an aroused male with his penis in the good spot that he had to stop. Whatever the legal requirement is, the human race wouldn't exist if males found it easy to stop having sex)

Heck, each of them would have let it go had they not met each other and feared STDs that they did not contract, or we would have heard about it. (because once they knew he wasn't using protection with multiple women, they rationally feared disease). They told their story, and it's some prosecutor somewhere that sees an opportunity to make a name for themself.

And the maximum penalty for the charges he faces (that have not been filed) is 4 years in the world's most pleasant prison system.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267930)

The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???

As you note, the terrible flaw in that conspiracy theory is that the UK already HAS an extradition treaty with the US, and is pretty good buddies with us. If the end goal was to get him into the US, why wouldnt he already be here?

Most countries only extradite criminals.

Its hard to extradite a "criminal" when that label requires a trial first, which assange has not had. Hes wanted for questioning to determine if there is a case against him.
From Wikipedia:
Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. (emphasis mine)
Assange fits that category.

If there was an charge pending then yes but there is not

My understanding is that they need to question him first to determine if charges can be filed or not.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265750)

Not really. If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK.

Yeah, but he won't. The whole thing is corrupt from top to bottom.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

qbast (1265706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265912)

How can he be safe in UK? It is pretty much US lapdog.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265936)

If that was really true, the UK would have just given him to the US via the extradition treaty in place currently. They haven't, so...

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268686)

The UK likes to pretend it isn't in the USA's pocket...if they can get the Sweden thing to work then they look blameless so it's worth a try.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265518)

From the level of paranoia he and his supporters are publicly showing, he's never going to be "safe", someone will always be out to get him...

For example, the huge fuss made over "number plate recognition cameras" that his supporters claim were "recently installed" near his bail address. Turns out that not only are they bog standard excessive speed warning cameras (which don't even record vehicles breaking the speed limit), but they had been there since 2002 and 2003.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265966)

Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They're Not Out to Get You.

The reason why wikileaks failed and keeps on failing, is because they try to detach themselves from politics. It's impossible, everyone is involved willingly or not to some degree.
That's why the Pirate Party is so incredible.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267986)

. It's impossible, everyone is involved willingly or not to some degree.

Its a hell of a lot more credible when you dont insert political commentary into the material you release, then throw huge press conferences whenever said material is anti-US, and refuse for several months to release un-commentaried and edited material.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (2)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269634)

Limecat, here's a tip for you:

It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?

--Jeremy

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (2)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266044)

I've driven in the UK, I spent the whole time fretfully glancing between my speed dial to make sure I wasn't going over the limit, my periphery looking for a speed camera and very occasionally in front to see where I was going. By the time I left, I was feeling paranoid too.

If you've got millions of people who can listen to a man like Jeremy Clarkson every week and say "hmm, I think he's got a point", it's pretty safe to say that the status quo must be pretty off balance.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266110)

Or you could just, you know, not break the speed limit?

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266148)

really? Because I live in the UK and I only rarely glance at the speedo. And I have never had a ticket. Not very many cameras around, and when they are, they are signposted so you now they are coming up.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266304)

If you have trouble maintaining a constant speed to the point where you are worried you might be caught for accidentally speeding, then perhaps you should be leaving a healthy margin between the speed you want to maintain and the set speed limit.

If you really were driving as you suggest, then you were essentially driving without due care and attention - if you cannot drive sensibly without a huge effort, then perhaps you shouldnt be driving.

Clarkson does have a point, but equally so does the government - you could just refrain from speeding...

Other drivers WILL NOT let you do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266596)

If you leave the barest minimum safe stopping distance between you and the car in front, cars will take that space up as if you were leaving it for them.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267010)

Speeding is one of those things are too easy to do. I mean: The difference between 80 and 90 kilometers an hour is abour 3 and a half meter a second, which again is nothing compared to the speed you are already moving at.
So what do you have to detect the difference? You got the sound of the gears, the sound of the air friction, and the speedometer. If you are driving at a flat landscape, and suddenly its a minor downhill, you won't notice the speed increase unless you speed up exessivly. While the cops looking for speeders usually don't mind cars being 7-8 km an hour faster than the speed limit, the cameras notice.
And how large is the fine? Too large for it to be neglishable.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267078)

In the UK the cameras are set for +10%, but regardless its very easy to stay within the speed limit and I reiterate my previous comment about how if you cannot maintain your speed, then you should be making allowances for that with a margin. I can tell when the car is speeding up uncommanded, its not that hard to do - also, anticipation is something you should be well aware of anyway as a driver, and you should be anticipating the fact that going down a gradient will cause the vehicle to speed up.

The fine in the UK is typically 3 points on your license and £60, or attendance of a speed awareness course. And no, thats not negligible, its not supposed to be...

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268080)

I can't speak for the UK law, but I know there are two concerns for speed limits in the US. Safety and emissions. Being overly concerned with one's speed isn't too good for either, especially in areas where the roads aren't always flat and straight. That's why I'm not okay with my local police engaging in predatory tactics trying to catch someone going just fast enough to issue a speeding ticket.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269396)

actually, the Association of Chief Police Officers guideline for the threshold for enforcement is +10% +2. But this is is the 'you absolutely should be ticketing people above this speed' limit, not the 'you should not issue tickets below this speed' limit. Safety Camera Partnerships can, and do, set the cameras dead-on the limit without notice to anyone.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268052)

10kmph is about 6mph, which isnt a huge margin, but considering the size / weight of a vehicle, it isnt a speed change which "just happens". You need to actually apply some pressure on the accelerator to go up that much.

Theres about a 1 mile-long hill near my house, and I can just about coast down it in neutral without gaining more than 10mph.

More to the point, if youre really having a problem with this, just start using cruise control.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38268408)

Similarly, there's a hill where I grew up (kind of a small valley, actually) It's 1 mile from top to top, and roughly half a mile to the bottom. If you start from the top at a dead stop and coast to the bottom you'll just about hit 25MPH before you start going up hill again.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268538)

10kmph is about 6mph

It's more accurate to say 8 kph is 5 mph. So 40=25, 88=55, 120=75. I've got a Suzuki with a metric speedometer and the conversion has become second nature. Every cop car has rolling radar and I would like to avoid tickets if at all possible.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268374)

You got the sound of the gears, the sound of the air friction, and the speedometer.

In modern vehicles, the gear and wind noise is gone, engine noise is almost gone and the speedometer is in the center of the dash, away from your field of view (thanks car manufacturers!).

The only way to make it easy to stay under the limit is to drive a really slow car. Makes driving less frustrating if you live in a country with slow drivers too.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266418)

Jeremy Clarkson is a Brit who doesn't hate himself or his country, which is a nice change from the pathetic scum who constantly debase themselves and UK, which was one of the greatest and finest nations in human history. He knows a lot about cars too.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38267600)

I've driven in the UK, I spent the whole time fretfully glancing between my speed dial to make sure I wasn't going over the limit, my periphery looking for a speed camera and very occasionally in front to see where I was going. By the time I left, I was feeling paranoid too.

If you've got millions of people who can listen to a man like Jeremy Clarkson every week and say "hmm, I think he's got a point", it's pretty safe to say that the status quo must be pretty off balance.

This says more about you than the UK. If you are prone to paranoia then you will see surveillance everywhere.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267574)

So when a little girl is grabbed off the street and raped by a terrorist there will be no way the car can be identified even though its plate was at one time picked up by a camera? That's not cricket!

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265682)

Can someone appeal against an appeal? If that's the case, whose legal fund do you think will run out first?

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268186)

Generally decisions can only be appealed to higher courts, and there is a finite hierarchy of courts. If the supreme court agrees to hear his case and then decides in his favor, that particular episode should be done.

The story won't; something else will be tried. I expect Assange will not be safe anywhere on the planet for a long time, and he's no better off if he hides in the shadows. Extradition from a first-world country is a small concern compared with the relative ease of abduction or assassination in less developed or unstable nations.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265706)

Julian Assange is a loser and you're a loser for supporting this kind of scum.

Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (2, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265948)

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:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266640)

Assange is a traitor and a spy. He is selling out thousands of faithful informants, revealing fragile diplomatic secrets and essentially waging cyber-war against the west - all for his own fifteen minutes of fame. He is also a rapist. Why doesn't he leak some documents concerning China, North Korea or Iran? Because those nations would actually take revenge and probably kill him. So he's a coward too. Conclusion: spy, traitor, rapist and coward. Not very flattering, eh?

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266758)

He's more of a patriot to the US than most of our elected and appointed officials, which is quite sad, given he's not even a US citizen.

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267080)

Got a question for you. What, exactly is it that he betrayed? The Western/American ideals of freedom, truth, and liberty?

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268122)

Freedom, truth, and liberty dont mean there are no secrets.

Go back to the revolutionary war and make the Continental Army's battle plans public, and see how long it takes them to hang you as a traitor-- try to explain to them how youre upholding "truth and freedom", see how well that works. Not all things are necessary to be public.

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38268498)

yes because he leaked actual battle plans and not some stupid diplomatic cables and former mission reports which should not have been classified in the first place. oh wait...

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269146)

Reading comprehension FTW. I wasnt arguing specifics, I was arguing against a broad, unsupportable generalization and freedom and trutth somehow justify any and all leaks.

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38267444)

replace "wikileaks" with "open source software" and "julian assamge" with "richard stallman", and see how that works in practice. (or "rails" and "david heynmeyer hanson", etc).
for some, the messenger is more important than the message.

Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268100)

Wikileaks may not be a bad thing in principle, but the idea that "there should be no secrets" and the whole anti-US sentiment kind of poison the whole thing for me. Put someone else at the helm who will focus on non-biased leaks without political drama and commentary, and who can be responsible in what they release (ie, NOT diplomatic cables unless they have urgent, must-be-made-public information in them), and I would wholeheartedly support it.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265714)

Julian will never be safe unless he gets plastic surgery and blows up the building that done said plastic surgery to ensure nobody knows what he looks like.

Julian trade is secrets, his career is an incredibly unsafe one both as that and as the public image of said group.
Honestly surprised he hasn't been offed yet.

Hope they keep up the good work. The world has to know what has become of government now.
Governments were initially appointed by the people to carry out their direct will with a central fund paid by tax. Now it is all spoken (and mostly broken) promises and vote-wars, secrets and deception, abuse of funds and abuse of information.
It is sickening. Nobody should be standing for such abuse of power when they were supposed to be OUR tool, the will of the people.
The more people know, the better.

Re:First he has to win this appeal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266336)

you can't win a right, either you have it or you don't, lol

Public interest? (2, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265484)

So being famous lets you get another appeal?

Re:Public interest? (3, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265526)

If you are famous for political actions and the charges brought against you are clearly part of a foreign country's political agenda.

Re:Public interest? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265580)

Yea, God damn those crazy, left wing Swedish liberals, always pushing their ridiculous "anti rape" agenda on the rest of the world.

Re:Public interest? (1, Troll)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265752)

I doubt the Swedes are the puppetmasters here, that role likely being American. And the rape accusation seems very dubious and quite convenient.

Re:Public interest? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265862)

Yet they have to be dealt with, don't they? Or are we know dismissing such charges based on someones actions in the past? "Hey, that guy criticized $people, he'd never rape someone!"...that also worked for Reiser.

Re:Public interest? (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266016)

What has to be dealt with? There are no accusations nor charges you silly. He is just wanted for "questioning."

Re:Public interest? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266142)

There may not be formal charges, but there are certainly accusations.

Re:Public interest? (2)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266218)

That's the whole point: It's nonsense to request extradition without formal charges. This is what makes the whole thing highly dubious.

Re:Public interest? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267230)

Except the swedish judicial system works differently from the UK . It isnt based on english common law like UK, USA, canada ,australia, etc

Of course you are an expert in such differences so my point is wasted.

Of course you also realize it is illegal for sweden to then extradite Assange to the USA. He has togo back to the UK first. Saying he is going to Sweden to face false rape charges to just get sent to the USA is ignorant at best.

Fact assage stuck his dick in two differemt women, they found out about each other and are pissed. In Sweden they have lots of legal positions to fuck over a guy in such situations. There doesnt need to be a vast conspiracy.

Also any guy in a high profile position(see Clinto, Cain,Spitzer) needs to be fully aware where he sticks his dick. Assange screwed up. Under the best situation he put himself in a position to get screwed over. Which shows just how little he knows about security.

Re:Public interest? (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267762)

Except the swedish judicial system works differently from the UK.

Except that he is in the U.K. Except that when he was in Sweden, the then prosecutor didn't see ground for prosecution. Except that "If Sweden were to say sucking toes without washing them first is rape, then would that be an extradition offence?"

Of course you also realize it is illegal for sweden to then extradite Assange to the USA

Oh ok, if it is "illegal" then no worry [hrw.org] .

Also any guy in a high profile position(see Clinto, Cain,Spitzer) needs to be fully aware where he sticks his dick

Only if they live in places where a pitch-fork-yielding populace is unduly concerned in a creepy way about the sex life of other people (like U.S., Iran, etc.)

Re:Public interest? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268240)

Except that he is in the U.K. Except that when he was in Sweden, the then prosecutor didn't see ground for prosecution.......Oh ok, if it is "illegal" then no worry [hrw.org]..

Wait, im not getting this. So hes in sweden, and could be extradited-- but the US whispers to Sweden "no, this is too easy, and not illegal enough-- wait till hes out-of country, then extradite him BACK on dubious grounds, THEN extradite him to the US illegally!" So they postpone the charges-- all with this plan in mind, wait till hes in another US-friendly country (with an extradition treaty), and then, instead of extraditing directly to the US, they want to bring him to Sweden so they can them ship him off to the US?

Care to clarify? The whole thing seems ludicrous; the simpler explanation of "he is being brought to Sweden to stay in Sweden and face charges" seems a lot more plausible.

Re:Public interest? (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268746)

The whole thing seems ludicrous; the simpler explanation of "he is being brought to Sweden to stay in Sweden and face charges" seems a lot more plausible.

Sigh... What "charges"? People keep saying "charges". There are no "charges".

Re:Public interest? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269228)

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[30] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.

Argue with their legal system, but dont blame them for not following it.

Re:Public interest? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38268294)

they have lots of legal positions to fuck over a guy

(I see what you did there!)

Re:Public interest? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268146)

BUZZZZ, Wrong.
Extradition can happen with a warrant. And for your conspiracy theory to make sense, you need to cleverly explain away the fact that the UK already has an extradition treaty with the US, and is just as cozy with us (if not more) than Sweden. Why hasnt assange been shipped off from Scotland yard to the US yet?

Re:Public interest? (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267232)

If he's received death threats (as I believe has been reported) then why does the questioning need to take place in Sweden? Surely if the Swedes were willing to pay for a (potentially one-way) plane ticket for Assange and a round trip ticket for an officer to bring him to Sweden, they could pay for a Swedish officer to travel to the UK and question him there; if it turns out that they want to charge him after that questioning, then they just need a second one-way plane ticket for the ride back to Sweden. Or they could make use of videoconferencing and save themselves the cost of the tickets if there's no reason to bring him to Sweden.

Re:Public interest? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266696)

The lack of formal charges suggests that it doesn't have to be dealt with, and it reeks of a setup. It's not that Assange would never rape someone, but rather that this seems very suspicious given the timing of it.

Re:Public interest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38268172)

On nov 18 2010 Julian Assange was arrested (swe: häktad) in his absence by the Stockholm district court on the lesser suspicion degree for:

* One case of rape
* Three cases of sexual molestation
* One case of unlawful force (forcing someone to do something against his/her will)

I'd say those are pretty formal charges. They may not stick due to lack of evidence, but that is for a court to decide.

Re:Public interest? (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266782)

None of what I've heard has sounded every a tiny bit like rape. What have you heard?

Re:Public interest? (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266800)

Doesn't matter how you comprehend it. Matters how the law does, and considering the accusation, it would be rape in Sweden.

Re:Public interest? (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265642)

No the summary is awful, when I read it I thought "Oh god, people are going to completely misunderstand that", and it seems by the second post they have.

The "public interest" bit refers to the fact that it's within the public interest to determine in British courts whether it's right for a prosecutor for the government to issue a European arrest warrant when such warrants are meant to be issued by the judiciary. It's also questioning whether Assange can even be referred to as the accused, when the Swedish police still to this date haven't yet even actually charged him with anything.

So "public interest" isn't about Assange, it's about examining the issues Assange's case raises - the public interest is ensuring justice is done, at question because it's not clear that the European Arrest Warrant has been correctly issued not whether the British people have an interest in seeing Julian himself protected.

Effectively, it would not be in the public interest for someone to be extradited if there is no legitimate legal grounds to do so, whether they're Julian Assange, Abu Hamza, or Gary McKinnon, justice must be upheld regardless of whether they're perceived middle ground, bad, or good.

Re:Public interest? (2)

whereissue (2522564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265776)

This! I hope this comment gets modded up to 5... way better than the summary!

This isn't a story about Assange... it's about the validity of the process which has been used in efforts to have him extradited.
He's just a more polarizing headline, so his involvement will, likely, outweigh coverage of a potentially significant precedent.

Re:Public interest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266814)

So "public interest" isn't about Assange, it's about examining the issues Assange's case raises - the public interest is ensuring justice is done, at question because it's not clear that the European Arrest Warrant has been correctly issued not whether the British people have an interest in seeing Julian himself protected.

Effectively, it would not be in the public interest for someone to be extradited if there is no legitimate legal grounds to do so, whether they're Julian Assange, Abu Hamza, or Gary McKinnon, justice must be upheld regardless of whether they're perceived middle ground, bad, or good.

How about debating and settling those arguments BEFORE you sign an extradition treaty?

Re:Public interest? (3, Interesting)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268184)

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.

He already lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265736)

wikileaks is effectively dead and Assange is spending all his time defending himself in lawsuits.

Public punishment by never ending prosecution.

The ascertation of fair ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38265878)

I hereby suggest and call for support at slashdot, to point out the importance of having to ascertain the importance of a fair ethical consideration to be of importance for Julian Assange's appeal.

Since the courts themselves surely is not to decide such an inquiry of ethical consideration (they should not, not on behalf of 'public interests grounds' anyway), it only makes sense that the courts is to learn about the grounds for understanding the moral implications regarding JA's peculiar situation as an human being, activist and a journalist.

This injunction would be a simple call for decency, where the problems around the legal framework itself would warrant the supreme court to learn about and relate to various dangers regarding human freedom, insofar as faculties of justice and similar civilized types of public fora are concerned.

Re:The ascertainment of fair ethics, my bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266012)

Oh, I now see that 'ascertation' is perhaps not a word. I should have used the word 'ascertainment'.

Re:The ascertainment of fair ethics, my bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266174)

'Ascertainment' is a proper noun; I do would like to get feedback and maybe get to learn if this is good grammar or not.

'The ascertainment of fair ethics' -- what I wrote as my correction

Re:The ascertainment of fair ethics, my bad (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268512)

If you want pointers on your grammar, here it goes.

I hereby suggest and call for support at slashdot, to point out the importance of having to ascertain the importance of a fair ethical consideration to be of importance for Julian Assange's appeal.

That section is very repetetive and unclear. What is it you wish to be pointed out? The importance of a fair ethical consideration of Assanges appeal? If so, a better wording might be
"to make known the importance of a fair ethical consideration of Julian Assange's appeal."

Since the courts themselves surely is not to decide s

"Is" would not be the proper word here, since "is" is only used for third person singular, and "courts" is third person plural ("courts" would fall under "they", not "he, she, or it"). Ditto in the second part of your sentence, use "are" instead of "is". Grammatically, the rest of your sentence is fine.

Everything else is fine, though your third sentence is awkward ("warrant" in the way you are using it typically goes with an "ing" ending-- such as "warrant the supreme court learning"). Ascertainment and Ascertation i have never heard used as words; they may be proper english words, but are likely to make your sentences muddled and confusing. I would recommend using a thesaurus for synonyms of "ascertain" for better choices.

Re:The ascertainment of fair ethics, my bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38269550)

I just want to point out that I never asked you for your opinion beyond that simple question pertaining to the proper use of grammar for one instance (the headline), so to expect me to care about your suggestion about using a thesaurus is abit naive and rude I think. It should also be mentioned that I chose to make use of the word 'ascertainment' for a good reason, for which one is to accept the most important task in a discussion about ethics, simply being the task of bringing about an awareness of ones specific argumentative discourse in order to pertain an awareness of its limitations, as the problems are discussed.

There ought not be anything remotely amusing with the multiple use of the word 'importance', even though it might look like I have been repeating myself in that argument given one can regard the word 'import' seriously. To put it bluntly; the argument has serveral clauses in which none are trivial and all are of import for the sake of this particular argument. In other words; being aware of the intended meaning with ones statement, has to be regarded as principally or substantially different than any other reflexive mode of argumentative discourse (debate), a discourse that otherwise risks undermining the proposed validity of ones own opinions if one is not attentive for that which you already had an opinion about.

The sole purpose of using that particular word in the headline was; to convey a poignant yet esoteric introduction to my argument, an argument in which and throughout the entire sentence one ought to keep in mind the brevity of the sentence as such while simultaniously being aware of the different clauses therein.

Re:The ascertainment of fair ethics, my bad (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38269646)

I was not attempting to insult or ridicule. You asked for grammar comment, and I did so. Your first sentence was extremely difficult to understand, and I dont think that needs ridicule, but I would be remiss not to point that out. I suggested a thesaurus because my time was limited, and that was the extent of the help I could provide, without knowing more specifically what you were trying to express.

I commented on the use of "ascertainment", which, if it is an english word at all, is very much non-standard, awkward, and hard to follow.

I spent a good deal of time trying to be helpful in a way that most non-native speakers I have dealt with indicate they prefer (that is, explain when they are wrong and why), and you seem to be upset about it. Usually if a non-native speaker is expressing themselves in a way that will make it difficult for a native speaker to understand, they want to be told; apparently you do not. Im sorry I spent any time whatsoever trying to be helpful, since it appears I wasted my time and upset you in the process.

did his "victims" have the same right of appeal (2)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266442)

Expose names of diplomatic and espionage parties on the web before asking their permission?

Re:did his "victims" have the same right of appeal (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267036)

Absolutely. And I'm sure that not only do they have the ability to expose such information, but the corporations and world governments that he's targeted do so all the time.

Anything to get his mug on television, eh? (1)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266608)

Why do we still care what this egomaniacal idiot does?

Re:Anything to get his mug on television, eh? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267054)

So - defending himself against the trumped up character assassination that he's been targeted with is self aggrandizement?

I guess you buy your cool aid by the barrel...

Money talks, and you-know-what walks! (1)

JohnVKaravitis (2342882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268412)

It's funny, but when this guy had his servers, etc., he was "cock of the walk". But when he got hit with legal troubles and the money dried up, now, all of a sudden, he's on the receiving end. I wonder what he thinks about now that his whole life has been de facto "wiki-leaked' for all the world to see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pontificating on the morality of WikiLeaks - once the info is out of the bag, you can never really put it back in. However, I am simply commenting on the irony of Mr. Assange's situation. And, assuming that all his legal troubles can be put behind him, what kind of future will he have? My point is that this guy will always be under the microscope. Will he ever be able to have a "normal" life ever again? I;m doubtful about this. John V. Karavitis

Tubgip8l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38268722)

parts of you are F88eBSD core team
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...