Absolute rot. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK is a far better place to get him from thanks to our extradition treaty. Why on earth would either country state they won't extradite him when they haven't been asked to extradite him and have no idea what the grounds for any extradition might be?
The secret trial process is presumably one that gives protection to the privacy of victims of sexual assault. Sweden has its own legal system, if you happen to go to Sweden you have to abide by it - if Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden.
If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden
Excuse me, but that's a remarkably ignorant comment. What you are actually saying is "If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding rape then he shouldn't have committed rape in Sweden". Because he wasn't accused of having sex in Sweden (that is not in any doubt), rather the questioning is in regards to an alleged rape.
You have no proof that he committed (or did not commit) rape in Sweden.
Do you have any details on whether Sweden or the UK are more likely to extradite to the US? Claiming that the UK has an extradition treaty isn't very meaningful, since Sweden has one, too, as do dozens of other countries for that matter. I assume it's down to the implementation details of the individual treaties.
It's disappointing that nobody seems to support what Julian Assange was trying to do with wikileaks. This Swedish rape accusation bullshit is a distraction and a smear campaign. I was hoping for more insightful comments from HN.
I can support what Julian Assange was trying to do, while not liking Julian Assange himself particularly. Actually, I find it unfortunate that what I view as sich a good idea, is attached to such an apparently dodgy individual.
I think wikileaks is interesting and powerful, but Julian Assange strikes me as a creep. At best he distracts from the cause he champions and at worst he really harms it. And I'm not talking about the rape accusation.
Assange is the one who inserted his own narcissism into the question. Believe it or not, some people actually do commit rape. There's no epidemic of false accusations--hell, even true accusations bear an enormous emotional cost for the victim.
10 minutes expected time on an extradution that is unecessary. I think they have already made up their mind. The best case scenario is that he will never be seen again, the worst? they will kill him.
This topic tends to cause people with no knowledge or experience of the English legal system to come out with some crazy stuff.
Firstly, judgements in England are typically delivered orally. The ten minutes refers to the time taken to read out the judgement in open court, not the time taken to deliberate.
Secondly, and this is a very important point that people here tend to forget, this has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.
Here are the facts: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) for Assange, and want him to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. As a member of the EU, the UK is obliged to transfer him to Sweden, as per the conditions of the warrant. The EAW is very useful, and makes a lot of sense: EU citizens can move and live between EU member states freely, and the EAW is an extension of that.
It is not of relevance to the English courts whether Assange is guilty or not: that's for the Swedish courts to ascertain. It is widely accepted amongst legal circles that Assange's defence is very weak. His defence team are trying to get him off on a technicality - the treaty that governs EU arrest warrants states that requests must be made by "competent judicial authorities", and they're arguing that the Swedish prosecutor isn't a "judicial" official.
That's it. That's all they have. Not honouring the EAW would have huge implications for extradition cases across Europe. I think it's quite likely Assange will be handed over to Sweden, but not because of some vendata or conspiracy - simply because he has no case with regards to his extradition. Assange could very well be totally innocent, but that's a matter he should argue in Sweden where the alleged offence was committed, not the UK.
Really? Do you really think a democratic country like the UK, Sweden, or the US would be so stupid as to kill such a lightning rod figure? We're not talking about backwater banana republics here, these are G20 countries with well-established legal systems.
From what I've read, he's not facing treatment any different from anyone else in this situation([1] and [2]).
It all appears to be by the book. This is not a railroading, as there have been much back and forth and waffling by the Swedish authorities whether there was a crime and whether to continue the investigation.
I think people see a conspiracy where there is none.
[+] [-] cmdkeen|14 years ago|reply
The secret trial process is presumably one that gives protection to the privacy of victims of sexual assault. Sweden has its own legal system, if you happen to go to Sweden you have to abide by it - if Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden.
[+] [-] chris_wot|14 years ago|reply
Excuse me, but that's a remarkably ignorant comment. What you are actually saying is "If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding rape then he shouldn't have committed rape in Sweden". Because he wasn't accused of having sex in Sweden (that is not in any doubt), rather the questioning is in regards to an alleged rape.
You have no proof that he committed (or did not commit) rape in Sweden.
[+] [-] morsch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextstep|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CJefferson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregbair|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SagelyGuru|14 years ago|reply
http://wlcentral.org/node/2486
[+] [-] drstrangevibes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] objclxt|14 years ago|reply
This topic tends to cause people with no knowledge or experience of the English legal system to come out with some crazy stuff.
Firstly, judgements in England are typically delivered orally. The ten minutes refers to the time taken to read out the judgement in open court, not the time taken to deliberate.
Secondly, and this is a very important point that people here tend to forget, this has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.
Here are the facts: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) for Assange, and want him to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. As a member of the EU, the UK is obliged to transfer him to Sweden, as per the conditions of the warrant. The EAW is very useful, and makes a lot of sense: EU citizens can move and live between EU member states freely, and the EAW is an extension of that.
It is not of relevance to the English courts whether Assange is guilty or not: that's for the Swedish courts to ascertain. It is widely accepted amongst legal circles that Assange's defence is very weak. His defence team are trying to get him off on a technicality - the treaty that governs EU arrest warrants states that requests must be made by "competent judicial authorities", and they're arguing that the Swedish prosecutor isn't a "judicial" official.
That's it. That's all they have. Not honouring the EAW would have huge implications for extradition cases across Europe. I think it's quite likely Assange will be handed over to Sweden, but not because of some vendata or conspiracy - simply because he has no case with regards to his extradition. Assange could very well be totally innocent, but that's a matter he should argue in Sweden where the alleged offence was committed, not the UK.
[+] [-] gregbair|14 years ago|reply
From what I've read, he's not facing treatment any different from anyone else in this situation([1] and [2]).
It all appears to be by the book. This is not a railroading, as there have been much back and forth and waffling by the Swedish authorities whether there was a crime and whether to continue the investigation.
I think people see a conspiracy where there is none.
[1]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro11/extr... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4ktning#H.C3.A4ktning_.2...