Assange to be Extradited

Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US.

Judge says WikiLeaks' Assange can be extradited

By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 24, 2011; 7:49 AM

LONDON -- Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden in a sex crimes inquiry, a British judge ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by the WikiLeaks founder that he would not face a fair trial there. Assange's lawyer said he would appeal.
Judge Howard Riddle said the allegations of rape and sexual molestation by two women against Assange meet the definition of extraditable offenses and said the Swedish warrant had been properly issued and was valid.
Assange, 39, a key figure in the release of tens of thousands of secret U.S. government and military documents, has been out on bail during the extradition fight. He has seven days to appeal the ruling in British courts.
After hearing three days of testimony this month, Riddle concluded "there is simply no reason to believe there has been a mistake" about the European Arrest Warrant issued by Swedish authorities.
In his ruling, the judge dismantled the defense case against extradition point by point. He rejected the claim that comments made against Assange by Swedish prosecutors and politicians would pervert the course of justice.
Assange's lawyers also said that Sweden's custom of hearing rape cases behind closed doors meant he would not get a fair trial, but Riddle said the practice was common in Sweden.
Assange's lawyers have questioned Sweden's judicial process and expressed concern their client risks being handed over to the United States, which is investigating whether Assange and WikiLeaks have violated U.S. laws by distributing secret government documents.
WikiLeaks has released tens of thousands of U.S. military documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on U.S. diplomatic efforts worldwide, deeply angering U.S. officials.

The judge said it was wrong for the defense to raise the question of a possible extradition to the U.S. or the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, given the absence of any evidence that Assange risks torture or execution.
The Swedish case stems from charges of sexual misconduct made against Assange by two women after he visited Sweden last August. Lawyers for Sweden have argued that authorities made repeated attempts to interview Assange while he was in Scandinavia, to no avail.
In Sweden, Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer representing the two women, said the decision had been expected.
"It's just too bad that it took so long," Borgstrom said. "(Assange) will probably appeal this decision for some reason that is hard to understand. He claims that he hasn't committed a crime so he should just come here and sort it out. I expect that he will be on Swedish soil before the summer."

Bjorn Hurtig, Assange's Swedish lawyer, told The Associated Press that he was already preparing to represent his client.
"If he comes to Sweden I think he has great chances of being freed," Hurtig said. "And I'll be waiting for him, ready to fight for him tooth and nail."
The hearing Thursday attracted Assange's usual coterie of high-profile supporters, including Bianca Jagger and Jemima Goldsmith.
About a dozen WikiLeaks and Assange supporters in ski hats and parkas gathered outside the court hours before the hearing, hanging banners and signs saying "Free Julian Assange and Bradley Manning," the U.S. Army private suspected of leaking the documents to WikiLeaks.
Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club who has been hosting Assange at his country estate, said the ruling was "disappointing."
Smith said Assange remains welcome at his house.
"He's good company," Smith said.

Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Not for a while. This one will go to the Supreme Court. There's a reasonable case to be made here on the open trial issue. I'd expect at least another year.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Guess now we'll see if this is a legitimate extradition or one orchestrated by the US. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And if so...that would be illegitimate, why?

Not for a while. This one will go to the Supreme Court. There's a reasonable case to be made here on the open trial issue. I'd expect at least another year.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Which Supreme Court? What cause of action?

And if so...that would be illegitimate, why? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I guess the inference I was trying to make was whether or not he eventually wound up in the US, no matter the machinations. Currently, the only action is between the two sovereigns: UK & Sweden. If he winds up in Guantanamo or in custody of the US, it would seem that the US would have to initiate that somehow.

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve the protections of freedom of the press.

Unlike responsible journalists, who vet their sources, he didn't even read the military data he released, much less tried to understand if it would result in the killing of innocents, cause harm to US stratgies/tactics and soldiers on the ground, and those trying to help the US.

He should be put to trial in a military court of law.

His document dump of diplomatic cables is another issue.

There was another thread that had a long discussion about the US's ability to indict, extradite and try Assange since he's never submitted to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable.

There was another thread that had a long discussion about the US's ability to indict, extradite and try Assange since he's never submitted to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I know what I said. Interesting that you don't dispute my overriding point which is:

Journalists vet their sources and information. Assange didn't. He just dumped the information onto the web to see where the shit would hit the fan.

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve Constitutional protections afforded to journalists under court rulings.

How can anyone comment intelligently on this matter without reading herfacechair's opinion?

Which Supreme Court? What cause of action? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

??? The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, of course. Where else?

Assange has a good - although probably losing - argument based on the secrecy of rape trials in Sweden. Article VI of the European Convention on Human Rights and the implementation of it in the UK under the Human Rights Act of 1998 clearly require a public hearing in all criminal cases except that "the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

Sweden doesn't allow for open trials in sexual assault cases even when the facts of the case and the identity of victim are already publicly known or when the victims themselves have already come forward with their story. I think Assange has a pretty good argument that secrecy is not allowed under the ECHR in such cases even though Sweden continues to impose it.

It's a weak argument, but a valid one. We have public trials in order to ensure that the justice system is working. I doubt there's a person in this country who would consider a secret trial appropriate in a criminal case. We condemn that sort of thing in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why shouldn't we impose the same rules in the West? Unfortunately, in this case I doubt that we will.

Cheers,
Mazo.

How can anyone comment intelligently on this matter without reading herfacechair's opinion? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

C'mon Captain.

Sleeping dogs and idiots should be allowed to rest in peace.

Cheers,
Mazo.

C'mon Captain.

Sleeping dogs and idiots should be allowed to rest in peace.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

LOL!

Yeah, you're probably right.

Just couldn't resist!

If he winds up in Guantanamo or in custody of the US, it would seem that the US would have to initiate that somehow. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Which begs the question again?...that becomes illegitimate, Why?

The other points you bring up re: journalist, "responsible" journalist, and the duty he owed, if any, to the US are all arguable. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Kind of like legitimacy.

Journalists vet their sources and information. Assange didn't. He just dumped the information onto the web to see where the shit would hit the fan.

He isn't a journalist and doesn't deserve Constitutional protections afforded to journalists under court rulings. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I think whether or not he is a journalist is an irrelevant argument compared to jurisdiction.

But to take your argument head on: journalists vet sources and information when presenting facts. For instance Woodward and Bernstien didn't publish any "Watergate" fact until they had corroborated it from two sources, however anonymous.

However (and I didn't get into Assange's mind), what if he was not publishing the material as facts? Just as material that came into his possession? Leaving it for others to determine the legitimacy and facts of the material? Wouldn't it be like me copying and pasting a Wikipedia article here? I don't speak for its validity and leave it to others to determine whether or not it is valid.

And could you please explain what you mean by "Constitutional" protections afforded journalists? And which one of those Assange is claiming?

And could you please explain what you mean by "Constitutional" protections afforded journalists? And which one of those Assange is claiming? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I don't know we will have to wait and see what his legal defenses are (if charged in a US jurisdiction).

The Court of European Human Rights is losing its damn mind in terms of consistency and accountability.
Last year, 2 terrorists from somewhere like Pakistan who had tried to bomb England (and were caught in England) were refused extradition on the basis that the Court of European Human Rights said these men would be tortured and killed if returned to their own country. Yet now they appear not give a toss that the argument is that upon extradition to Sweden, Assange will not get a fair trial. What? We don't care about the fair trial we only care about the impending punishment? Human rights my arse. What a load of bollocks.