Beta

×

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!

Supreme Court Rules Julian Assange May Be Extradited

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the pack-your-bags-for-gitmo dept.

The Courts 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.

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm confused (2, Interesting)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154105)

What are they extraditing him for? Is he charged with any crime? This smells like bullshit to me.

Re:I'm confused (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154137)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154159)

"to the fullest extent of law."

Really?? since when does the extent of law matter in post-9/11 US ?

Re:I'm confused (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154249)

Actually I disagree, while I do believe that US wants him to be extradited to their jurisdiction. However, there is something that is bugging me, why go through all that trouble ? I mean he has to go through a lengthy process just to be sent to Sweden where he will be interrogated and might face charges of rape ( I am not arguing the validity of those charges ) and go to prison, and after he finishes his term then and only then the US might ask from "SWEDEN" for him to be extradited, and will take time. If they want him that bad why not kidnap him ( I know I know, not that easy and huge backlash if they do) ? Why go through all of that ? Why not ask that from the UK immediately, I have a feeling that they will be more than happy to hand him over. They might be playing the time card, that if enough time passes he will be irrelevant and when he does get extradited to the US little or no opposition will form. But it nullifies the whole idea, if he is irrelevant then it doesn't matter if they get him or not unless its a behavior of a vindictive asshole, then forget what I said.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154385)

and will take time

If there is one thing that governments do have, it's time.

Re:I'm confused (5, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154555)

*tinfoil hat on*
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 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154279)

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 (5, Informative)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154485)

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:I'm confused (2)

joe545 (871599) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154699)

Except you cannot always extradite someone who you have had extradited to your country. The first country normally adds caveats to prevent that

Re:I'm confused (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154827)

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 (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154885)

The UK will 'forget' to do it in this case.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154761)

3) As part of Sweden's extradition treaty with the UK they must have the UK's permission before extraditing him anywhere else.

Maybe it is easier for the US to get him this way than it is for them to get him directly from the UK, maybe Sweden will "forget" to ask permission from the UK to extradite him to the US, or maybe it is just a paranoid conspiracy theory although given some other action by the US gov (Kim Dotcom?) it seems plausible.

Re:I'm confused (2)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154301)

it typically seems easier to get somone extradited to US from the UK rather than Sweden so that seems unlikely.

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:I'm confused (1, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154401)

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:I'm confused (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154469)

Maybe you should actually read up on what is considered rape according to Swedish law?

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154841)

I don't think Sweden understands what rape is, then.

Re:I'm confused (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154365)

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:I'm confused (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154149)

Well, the article claims that he's being extridited for sex crimes. I guess reading the part of the article in big bold letters helps.
 
How is it that you missed this detail?

Re:I'm confused (0)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154201)

If all you do is read the big bold letters, it gets hard to read between the lines.

Congratulations on completely missing the point of the GP.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154273)

The point isn't missed. That's fine if he wants to discuss the charges. But to act as if the charges aren't real is no way to go about it. I can read between the lines better with knowing what the charges are as I could without blindly dismissing them.
 
I think you've missed the ideas present in honest and open communication without having to resort to melodrama to make a non-point.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154317)

Except there are no charges.

Go ahead, try to dig yourself out of that hole.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154361)

You don't need to be charged to be extradited. Swedish wants to arrest him and ask him questions, before deciding whether or not to charge.

I am a UK citizen, and if a visitor to my country is accused of rape in Sweden, and the Swedish authorities want him in Sweden to answer those questions, and he refuses to go (which he has), then I don't really understand why the UK shouldn't extradite him to Sweden.

Dave.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154605)

Charges don't need to be filed for extridition to happen.
 
And you don't dig yourself out of a hole, asshat.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154343)

Except GGP is like everyone else who down plays sex crimes. Assange has a history of 'almost rape'. It is very likely he did commit these crimes, and should at least honestly defend himself against them. We can only hope that the Swedish courts are fair.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154429)

Exactly. Who's going to stand up in support of an "almost rapist"?

Re:I'm confused (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154717)

May I present you the "trial" against the guy behind the Pirate Bay? Presided by none other than Thomas NorstrÃm [wired.com] ? Fair trial my ass. This thing will be as rigged. We have a looooong history of such "trials".

Re:I'm confused (1)

Shienarier (185368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154243)

"Extradited for sex crimes" doesn't really answer the question if he has been charged with any crimes. And no, he has not.
He is just a suspect, and wanted for questioning.

Re:I'm confused (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154291)

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 (4, Interesting)

pipatron (966506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154491)

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:I'm confused (2, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154257)

What are they extraditing him for?

For fucking with the U.S. government.

Re:I'm confused (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154311)

He is accused of Rape. He has not been charged, but the Swedish authorities want him to be questioned in Sweden. For reasons he has never fully explained, he refuses to go to Sweden to be questioned.

Personally, given that he is accused of rape in another EU country, he should bloody well go there and answer some questions. Arguing that the UK has no right to extradite him to Sweden to answer questions (in one of the most liberal and developed countries around) seems incredible.

Dave.

Re:I'm confused (-1)

crawling_chaos (23007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154463)

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, or that hardcore conservatives have with accepting the reality of global warming. Uncomfortable facts are ignored when they hurt "our" side and emphasized when they hurt "their" side.

My personal feeling is that the USA wanted to neutralize him in such a way that they didn't have to actually ever take custody of him and the negative publicity that would entail, and that Mr. Assange's sense of privilege handed the CIA an opportunity on a silver platter. Whether they set him up, or just dug up existing dirt on him and made sure it became public knowledge is an open question, but the second case requires far fewer assumptions to hold based on what we know now, and is therefore the more likely one.

The spy game isn't like the movies kids: it's a results oriented business, and sometimes your targets personal failings are actually your biggest assets.

Re:I'm confused (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154611)

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 (0)

arikol (728226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154691)

yes he was.
He was accused of hiding his actions during intercourse, thereby performing a non-consensual sexual act upon another person. That is considered rape here in Sweden. Simple.

The sex would have been consensual had he done as he promised. As he broke his agreement then the consensual part of the intercourse no longer applied.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154773)

he still hasn't been charged with anything, being a suspect is different.

I think you're looking for room 12.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154845)

He was accused of hiding his actions during intercourse, thereby performing a non-consensual sexual act upon another person.

What the hell "hiding someone actions during intercourse" can possible mean? D'you care to explain?

Re:I'm confused (3, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154865)

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 (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154673)

"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 (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154727)

>>>He is accused of Rape.

Let's set the record straight: He is accused of not wearing a condom. 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.

BTW Julian has a television show on RT News. You might want to check it out sometime, to see if he's an asshole or not.

The story so far (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154411)

  1. A cryptoanarchist creates an organization whose purpose is to help whistleblowers release information.
  2. A soldier from the United States uses his access to military computers to leak documents and videos related to the US war effort in the middle, through the above whistleblower organization. This same soldier also leaks US diplomatic cables. This soldier is later betrayed by a hacker and is arrested.
  3. The cryptoanarchist goes to Sweden; while in Sweden, he has sex with women who have connections to the CIA.
  4. The CIA-connected women claim that the cryptoanarchist raped them, under Sweden's broad definition of rape.
  5. The cryptoanarchist is placed under house arrest in England, while the British courts decide whether or not he can be extradited to Sweden. That matter has now been settled; he will be extradited.
  6. The soldier who leaked the documents, videos, and cables remains in solitary confinement in the United States, and must be given antidepressants as a result of the psychological stress of having no human contact for most of his days.
  7. This whistleblower organization remains active, but has been shaken to its core. Its leadership is in shambles, its reputation has been smeared by the mainstream media, banks have refused to process payments made to that organization, and people who need to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations are left in the same situation they were in before: relying on the technically illiterate journalists that work at traditional media outlets.

Does that help clarify things?

Re:The story so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154487)

The cryptoanarchist goes to Sweden; while in Sweden, he has sex with women who have connections to the CIA.
Does that help clarify things?

Not in the slightest until you can provide proof of this.

Re:The story so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154635)

Re:The story so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154709)

Oh please! That is not proof.

Re:The story so far (0, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154715)

Yawn.

The mental gymnastics you have to do to go from, "Politically active woman has run in with creepo rapist megalomaniac with a revolutionary fetish" to "The US wants his head and is using this woman to get to him" is ABSURD. It's conspiratorial thinking AND slut shaming AND rape apologetics, now only if someone will tie this to male rights I'll hit internet male asshole bingo thanks to the free space.

Re:The story so far (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154779)

>>>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 (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154871)

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.

Other than the lie... (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154669)

What CIA connection do the women have?

Re:The story so far (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154745)

Excellent summary. I would also add that the descrediting campaign has also involved a suspected CIA plant/informant [wikipedia.org] within Wikileaks itself--who has no only tried to discredit Assange, but also sabotage Wikileaks, steal data on submitters, and set up his own obvious honeypot leaks site [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The story so far (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154883)

And from this, we can learn the following valuable lessons:

  1. Don't release confidential information.
  2. If you feel you must, don't trust someone who's already demonstrated lax ethics with their hacking activities.
  3. If you must trust someone untrustworthy, at least realize that you'll be pissing off one of the most powerful governments on Earth, and you should make yourself practically untraceable first.
  4. If you're making a business of releasing confidential information, don't be the only spokesman/target.
  5. Don't get romantically or sexually involved with anyone while you're a target, regardless of how long a time they say they'll love you.
  6. Don't try to use more confidential information to extort your way out of responsibility for releasing previous confidential information.
  7. Never get involved in a land war in Arabia.
  8. Never go in against a Swede when death is on the line.

Some of these are quite old lessons, indeed, yet people keep needing to be taught them again...

Re:I'm confused (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154849)

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.

Won't be reopened... (0)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154111)

This won't be reopened, as despite Ms Roses position regarding the Judges comments about the treaty conventions, the Judges are allowed to test the validity of the arguments presented by both sides, so they need to test the defences assertion that the warrant is illegal or unlawful - that means referring to past cases and decisions to determine consistency. Ms Rose doesn't have an argument there.

So the UK lawyers don't earn anymore from this ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154117)

So the Swedish ones can start partying today ??

UK... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154131)

U$A's b*tch...

Re:UK... (2)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154391)

Not at all. Sweden has issued an international arrest warrant and started extradition proceedings. Since Sweden is regarded as a friendly country with a legitimate government and judiciary they really don't have any choice. Moreover the alleged sexual offences happened in Sweden. It's not as if they want to try him on some nebulous charges relating to Wikileaks.

Re:UK... (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154575)

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...

Gee there's a surprise (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154169)

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:Gee there's a surprise (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154227)

There are no charges. He's only wanted for questioning.

Re:Gee there's a surprise (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154495)

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 (4, Informative)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154531)

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:Gee there's a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154537)

Refresh my memory but IIRC Sweden cannot charge someone with a crime until they have been questioned.

Re:Gee there's a surprise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154263)

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 (4, Informative)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154283)

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 (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154371)

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:Gee there's a surprise (-1, Troll)

Yaruar (125933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154753)

Or possibly there are strong legal reasons why they can't do proxy interviews outside of their jurisdiction?
Or possibly even they were pissed off he did a runner from the country whilst under investigation for a serious crime?
Maybe there is a chance he is guilty according to Swedish law and he is going to try to do everything he can to stop himself from facing trial?

Recent case law and the special relationship between the UK and US (which is a pretty one sided relationship...) 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 (after 5 years of court appearances and trials...)

I'm quite impressed by how many tin foil hats he's managed to convince to crawl out of the woodwork in order to help him avoid having to face the accusations properly.

Re:Gee there's a surprise (-1, Troll)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154305)

It feels that Julian are really afraid to be humiliated in the front of the whole world. He really needs public attention. That case in Sweden will be ugly, no matter what Julian intentions were when sleeping with these girls, if something nasty happened - there will be court, there will be judgment.

As I have always said - he is an arogant ass. Maybe results of his actions have created chain reaction, but in overall, it was very big noise over very little substance. Diplomacy is ugly truth we don't want to know when we buy those cheap mobile phones and food (yep, they are cheap). Exposing it is just like saying - life is difficult, to survive you have to live with some ugly stuff. Did it make people safer? No really. Arab spring? It was just a reason, a cause of it were much deeper. After all this happened, do people care what diplomats thing or do? Most of them don't.

We knew that ACTA sucks before Wikileaks. We knew that North African didactors are ruthless killers. We knew that Putin runs mafia in Russia. We knew all this.

In the end it was just a empty posture.

Re:Gee there's a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154389)

Julian has gone on record for why he doesn't want to be extradited to Sweden, he says from there it will be easier for him to be extradited to USA, and given USA's record of imprisoning people without trial, it's something that Julian is justified in wanting to avoid.

Re:Gee there's a surprise (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154333)

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 (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154527)

Libertarians think they're getting freedom by eliminating the government. They're just getting corporate slavery.

As opposed to people like Assange?

You haven't a clue about what slavery really is.

Re:Mental disconnect in your .sig (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154599)

As opposed to people like Assange?

I suspect Assange is a contrarian, not a libertarian. Either way, it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

You haven't a clue about what slavery really is.

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.

Re:Mental disconnect in your .sig (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154653)

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:Mental disconnect in your .sig (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154677)

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:Gee there's a surprise (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154483)

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 (4, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154561)

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.

And (5, Funny)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154185)

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:And (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154237)

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:And (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154277)

Julian has never been to the US. His extradition to the US from the UK would not be possible, even with the "special relationship" status we have.

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:And (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154297)

"... if US officials are at the airport..."

I'm doing this more often, nowadays. I need to spend less time around knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

Re:And (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154447)

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:And (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154525)

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.

Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (2)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154195)

If the government can't get you on what they want they settle for anything that puts you behind bars even if it's something dicey like this lame charge. It's one of the reasons for search warrants or my favorite is searching your car when they pull you over for a dead tail light. If you look hard enough you can usually find something to bust people on. Translated if they want to put you in jail they can probably come up with something to bust you on.

Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154251)

Except Al Capone wasn't some sexually frustrated internet dude. Assange may be a hero to freedom but it doesn't suddenly excuse his rather well documented history of less then honest sexual encounters.

Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (3, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154445)

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:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154489)

As if this is a new tactic? Convincing everyone that your enemy is a sexual predator or deviant is the oldest trick in the book.

Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (2)

Yaruar (125933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154791)

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:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (4, Informative)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154497)

A Soviet prosecutor, Andrey Vyshinsky [wikipedia.org] once said "Give me a man and I'll find an article." I think this is a clear example of this principle being used against a political enemy. It was a standard practice of totalitarian regime to charge someone with some relatively minor crime [wikipedia.org] and then sentence them to death or life in prison. In this case Assange could just be sent to Guantanamo and "await further decision" till hell freezes over.

Re:Keeps reminding me of Al Capone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154867)

Actually, the guy who springs to mind is Roland Freisler [wikipedia.org] , who famously once burst out "Wir brauchen kein Gesetzbuch, Recht ist, was dem deutschen Volke nutzt." which translates as "We don't need any book of law! What's right, is what gains the German people."

Feel free to substitute beneficiaries etc as fits the case. Also keep this one in mind, Tomas NorstrÃm [wired.com] . Lookie, more fishy stuff in that context here [wired.com] .

the US is the puppet master (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154217)

All of this has nothing to do with anything but ultimately getting him to the US, the US is upset over the fact that he leaked the truth about what they were doing. They want payback. This is about the fact that he pissed off an 800 lb gorilla and that gorilla wants to make an example of him. Did he do anything illegal, IMO, no, but that counts for nothing. It comes down to how can they US manipulate the system with bogus charges to get him where they need him to be ... in their control

Re:the US is the puppet master (2)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154375)

I doubt that, UK has stronger extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has so why not just request that UK turn him over?

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:the US is the puppet master (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154565)

suspected of a crime

...yet not charged with one.

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...

Sure thing (0)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154223)

Yeah, we will challenge, we will object...:)

Sorry for being sarcastic, but I don't see how Julian will avoid this one (except running again). And please, don't get me started about how Sweden will send him to US - for starters, UK has been biggest whipping boy for US on such cases. How US haven't requested extradition is quite interesting - either they don't care (less likely), or they can't nail him with current evidence (knowing that even with such explosive charges no country will sent him to US without lenghty evolution of available evidence).

So it is quite possible that he is fighting this because he doesn't want world to know what ass he can be sometimes :)

Welcome to sunny Guantanamo Bay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154245)

I look forward to the imminent apprehension of this enemy combatant.

Who the fuck is 'Ms Rose'? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154275)

Fuck slashdot "editors". EDIT THE SUMMARIES BITCHES!

Lameness filter encoLameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! untered. Post aborted!

Lead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154539)

"This lead to the court staying the order until June 13th to give Assange's lawyers time to argue this avenue"

I wouldn't send lead to the court - aside from being very heavy, it's quite common and not particularly valuable.

Gold is good, but also heavy. Try diamonds instead; they are also in fact quite common but the market inflates their value so the bribe-to-weight ratio is very good.

Re:Lead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154863)

"This lead to the court staying the order until June 13th to give Assange's lawyers time to argue this avenue"

I wouldn't send lead to the court - aside from being very heavy, it's quite common and not particularly valuable.

You misunderstand. We use a, *ahem* high-speed delivery service for the lead. Lead moving at high speed is not so common.

Spark (1)

h4x0t (1245872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154543)

Julian Assange thrown into gitmo might be just the spark we need. It'd be a huge uproar.

'D suck for him tho.

Julian Assange is still relevant? (0)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154601)

really wasn't that like 10 years ago he was a big deal?

Ten years ago? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154633)

I guess you did not notice the stir that Wikileaks, an organization that was led by Julian Assange, created over the past few years. You know, the revelations about banks, about the US government, about the "global intelligence" industry, and numerous other corrupt organizations?

Meanwhile wikileaks is distracted ... (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154647)

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.

I Mean What They Mean I Mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154833)

He is being requested by a Swedish administrative government prosecutor. In britain, that is not a "Judicial Authority", as the British parliamentarians that voted the ratification of the European extradiction treaty (or whatever) understood it.

However, a panel, er, council of British "supremes" decided 5x2 that "Judicial Authority" means what it means on the Treaty in French. Not what the lawmakers and British parliamentarians thought it meant - in English - when they ratified and voted it into British extradiction Law.

A government prosecutor is - in French - a "Judicial Authority". In Britain, that means at least a Judge. In other words, an administrative government servant x an "independent" judicial power.

They want him "for questioning". But, refuse to question him in Britain, even in the Scotland Yard.

More toast, Alice?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>