215

Julian Assange to face trial in Sweden

U.K. court rules WikiLeaks founder will be extradited


 

Julian Assange, the controversial and enigmatic founder of WikiLeaks, will be extradited to Sweden to face trial for sexual assault and rape charges, a London court has ruled. District Judge Howard Riddle ruled that extradition would not violate Assange’s human rights and dismissed his claim that he would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. Assange face three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape. Assange’s lawyers maintain that if he is moved to Sweden to face trial, he could also be extradited to the U.S. to face terrorism charges for his role in the release of confidential U.S. State Department cables, and could possibly face the death penalty.

BBC News


 
Filed under:

Julian Assange to face trial in Sweden

  1. Be very careful in England or Scotland they have demonstrated a frightening lack of judgment, as when it released the Lockerbie bomber for financial gain after contriving a story of ill health and now want to extradite Assange to Sweden under pressure from the U.S. They have no scruples.
    Does this sound a little fishy to anyone else?

  2. Be very careful in England or Scotland they have demonstrated a frightening lack of judgment, as when it released the Lockerbie bomber for financial gain after contriving a story of ill health and now want to extradite Assange to Sweden under pressure from the U.S. They have no scruples.
    Does this sound a little fishy to anyone else?

    • It sounds fishy to millions of people. The US is trying to shut him down, and it's not working. The UK is making a last-ditch attempt here.

      • This is Assange doing his best american impersonation:
        http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4C72KC/www.good.is/

        I guess the never ending pockets are drying up, defence fund anyone? And yes most likely he is going to the US, most likely will spend the rest of his life in jail.

        • I was giving Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt, but now I doubt that it will exist for very long after Assange is locked up. Once you start diverting funds raised for a perceived global good towards an individual's needs your organization is done.

          • The concept of Wikileaks was noble just badly executed, here is a link from El Pais, is in spanish though, where the five newspapers directors got together to explain Wikileaks, I used Bing translate for the page which it is pretty good but it does sound like me : )
            http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=In

        • Interesting to know how many Cons are against freedom of the press.

          Btw…the US has nothing they can charge him with…in fact he hasn't even been charged in Sweden.

          • I am not against freedom of the press, I am for responsible press, I just think Assange didn`t have it as his best interest, it is all about him! check the link I put above.

          • But I do think he will end up in jail, they will find something.

          • Freedom of the press is a guaranteed right….no democracy can function without it.

            Assange has done nothing different than any newspaper publishing leaked documents….something they often do….he's just doing it online. That's not illegal.

            Wikileaks is an organization, not one guy with a laptop, and he's only their current spokesman. Wikileaks will continue with or without him. They have been doing so all this time, even when he was in jail.

            The US has been trying to find a way to nail him, and cannot. Assange isn't even American.

          • Did you eve read the link? Oh Emily, not even worth it getting into a debate with you, your mind is set, I guess time will tell..

          • There IS no debate. Assange is doing nothing illegal, this is simply a vendetta.

            And Wikileaks will carry on regardless.

          • Can't comment on the illegal bit, but their approach IS irresponsible and (IMO) immoral.

            And yes, Emily, I am very aware that Wikileaks has, amongst the dreck they post, put up some valuable information. The problem is with their approach and intent; two wrongs don't make a right.

          • Up until a couple of hours ago I would have agreed with you Emily. However, then I looked at their web site. A couple of things struck me. The "About Wikileaks" does not refer to any Board or oversight process. The "Donation" page has now completely eliminated any distinction between Wikileak's stated objective of transparent journalism leading to better government and the fund to help with Assange's court case in Sweden.

            Could it be Wikileak's responsibility to look after Assange? Well, first you have to buy into the conspiracy theory that the Swedish case is really just the Swedes helping out the Americans.

            Even then, any responsible organization would have to have to publicly disconnect Assange from that decision since he is clearly in conflict.

            Even then, any responsible organization would have to be clear to raise funds specifically for that purpose rather than divert money that was raised with a different intent.

            On the plus side, the web sight has lots of pictures of Julian.

          • A couple of hours ago you were also condemning Wikileaks.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

            I don't know what your problem is, but neither Assange nor Wikileaks need your approval.

          • No, but then again neither does the Church of Scientology, the Nation of Islam, Mothers Against Drunk Driving or any of a number of organizations that profess to be doing good things. And yet I am entitled to have an opinion about each of those organizations, a fairly informed opinion (given what is publicly available). When I formulate my opinion, generally I try to measure their actual performance against their stated objectives as well as the structure of the organization. Is it transparent? Is it accountable?

            So since Assange has made himself a very public figure, indeed he is the sole public face of an organization whose raison d'être is publicity then yes I am entitled to have an opinion of him. Moreover, since WikiLeaks claims to be transforming the nature of modern journalism, government and society, I am entitled to have an opinion of that organization.

          • Yes, and we now know what your opinion is on freedom of the press.

            And democracy.

          • If you truly do believe in democracy then I can't imagine how you could agree with what Mr. Assange is doing. Disregard Wikileaks for a second here, the very premise of a democratic justice system is that anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and know that their accusation will be tried fairly. If you are accused of a crime and a judge finds that this accusation has enough merit to deserve further investigation, then it is your democratic duty to face your accusers.

          • Publishing state dept cables isn't accusing anyone of anything.

          • Mr. Assange is being accused of sexual assault and rape. That hardly has anything to do with wikileaks.

          • They want to question him…there are no charges.

            And had you followed this, you'd know the whole thing is groundless.

            As I said upthread it's a vendetta…an attempt to stop Wikileaks, however it hasn't worked

          • I have followed this and as far as I can see if these allegations are groundless then there is no reason for him to be against questioning. Why should he not want to clear his name unless he is guilty, or believes himself to be above the law.

          • He answered their questions before he left Sweden, so he knows very well why they want him back.

          • Why?

          • For extradition to the US

          • Again, why? If the Americans wanted to charge Assange and extradite him, why wouldn't they just charge him and extradite him from the U.K.?

          • The laws between the UK and Sweden differ greatly, and Assange isn't American

          • So you're saying that you think that the U.K. wouldn't extradite Assange to the U.S. but Sweden would? I find that hard to believe.

            On what basis would the U.K. refuse to extradite him that wouldn't also be a basis for Sweden to similarly refuse?

          • As I said, the laws are different between the two countries.

            None of this nonsense would constitute rape in the UK…and it has to be an extraditable offence.

          • None of this nonsense would constitute rape in the UK.

            Maybe, but the U.K. are going to extradite him to Sweden noentheless aren't they? What you seem to be arguing is that Sweden is more likely to extradite him to the U.S. than the U.K., and you're basing this argument on the fact that the U.K. is willing to extradite him to Sweden to face questioning about something that likely wouldn't be a crime in the U.K. How does that make any sense?

            How does the U.K.'s decision to extradite Assange to Sweden suggest in any way that they WOULDN'T extradite him to the U.S., if such a request were ever made?

          • Probably. But it's Swedish law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to Sweden for questioning.

            Sweden is more likely than the UK to send him to the US….

          • You keep saying that "Sweden is more likely than the UK to send him to the U.S." but what I'd like to know is why you think that's true? You can say it again and again but that doesn't make it a fact. I've heard this suggestion made before, but what I have yet to hear is anyone explain why it might be true.

            I can't just accept that Sweden is more likely than the UK to send Assange to the U.S. because Emily and Assange's lawyers say so.

            To put it another way, if it's true that "it's Swedish law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to Sweden" why would it not also be true, if the Americans asked the Brits to extradite him to the U.S. that "it's American law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to America"???

          • Because Assange hasn't broken any laws in the UK….he isn't even wanted for questioning there on the POSSIBLE breaking of laws.

            Sweden wants him for questioning, so that's all the UK can deal with.

            If the US wants him…then they have to deal with Sweden, not the UK.

            And at the moment the US can't nail him from either country, although they're looking for a way to do so.

            But Sweden would be likely to send him if the Americans wanted him.

            Sweden and the US are very close.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality#T

          • Sigh.
            "Assange fears that being taken to Sweden will make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of the US embassy cables.

            Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for any onward extradition. No charges have been laid by the US, though it is investigating the website's activities"
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/24/julia

          • "The defence argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not extraditable. The judge says the three alleged offences against Miss A (sex assault and molestation) meet the criteria for extradition offences and a fourth against Miss B, an allegation of rape, "would amount to rape" in this country (the defence had disputed this)."
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/feb/24/

          • Wouldn't be hard to do by the sound of it.

          • Would you like to know what else is groundless? All of the arguements against extradition. He argues that he will not receive a far trial, but this is not grounds against extradition in the European Union because of the European Arrest Warrant which states that this safeguard is not necessary because all EU nations are committed to the right to a fair trial. He argues that without charges there can be no extradition but the material-witness warrant is grounds for extradition, especially in a case where the witness fled the country before being questioned. They say it is unfair to send him off to a foreign country where he does not speak the language, and yet just under 90% of Sweden speaks english. Finally the claims that he will be extradited to the U.S. once there make no sense considering his insistence on staying in the U.K. or going back to Australia, if he were in fact afraid of extradition then why wouldn't he too want to flee these countries who have far greater and long-standing alliances with the U.S. than Sweden, a country known for its neutrality.

          • Nobody issues a European Arrest Warrant over a condom.

            He answered their questions, and told them he was travelling to the UK….they've had his address and phone number all this time.

            It has nothing to do with language.

            Extradition is extradition…your wishes or country of origin don't matter.

            Sweden is not neutral

          • I believe Swedish neutrality is the official security policy in Sweden, and has been since the early 19th century. "non-participation in military alliances during peacetime and neutrality during wartime." was how a U.S. official described it in, lol, a 2010 U.S. diplomatic cables leak.

            But now this is just splitting hairs, my arguement is that Mr.Assange has no less obligation to adhere to the judicial system than anyone else.

          • I continue to fail to see what your reasoning is on this whole Sweden-U.S. business. Yes that is the swedish neutrality page, the exact one where I got my information from regarding the fact that to this day Sweden continues to act as a neutral country.
            On the page that describes foreign policy of the U.S. Sweden is not even mentioned as being an ally. And yet the U.K. is referred to as being its 'most important bilateral relationship in the world.' with both countries investing hundreds of billions in the partnership. Meanwhile Australia is described as having 'ascended to one of the closest one or two allies of the U.S. on the planet.

          • Whatever, Blue Man. Like I said, neither Assange nor Wikileaks need your approval, so Cons like you who hate freedom of the press can't do squat about it.

            Here's that link again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

            Try reading it this time. You'll learn something.

          • Give it a rest, Anon.

            Btw, Kinsella is looking for you.

          • "Cons are against freedom of the press" – Exactly how are you drawing this conclusion from this article? Obama – the head of the US is a liberal and Sweden is a socialist country so if the two are working together to shut down Assange – where are the conservatives in this?

          • Neither Sweden nor Obama are liberal or socialist.

            The very fact they're working together to shut down media should have clued you in, if nothing else did.

          • "the very fact they're working together…should have clued you in"

            What may have confused Healthcare Insider a bit here is the absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever that the Obama administration and the Swedes are actually working together. It's possible that HI waits to see empirical evidence that something is actually happening before declaring that it's a "fact" that said thing is happening.

            There's certainly a prominent conspiracy theory that the Americans are manipulating things with the Swedes behind the scenes, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that suggests that this is true. I think a lot of conspiracy theorists will be sorely disappointed when Assange shows up in Sweden and the Americans STILL don't charge him with anything, let alone try to extradite him.

          • So, the fact that the Swedes apparently worked secretly with the U.S. in the 50s and 60s on efforts to prevent the invasion of Sweden by the Soviet Union is somehow evidence that the Swedes are working secretly with the Americans today on efforts to send Assange to the U.S.?

            By that logic the fact that the Manhattan Project was kept secret in the 1940s is evidence that the Americans are currently engaged in secret negotiations with aliens to invade Alpha Centuri.

          • The US and Sweden are very close….and the facts from the beginning of this vendetta against Assange have made that clear time and again.

            If you want to wander off into la-la land, it's your choice.

          • I don't deny that the U.S. and Sweden are very close. The Swedes are awesome, so they're pretty close with everyone. That said, aren't the U.S. and the U.K. EVEN CLOSER? I still don't understand this argument that the Swedes are likely to extradite Assange to the U.S. but the British aren't.

          • You have an image of Sweden as being left-wing socialists who are wonderfully open and progressive.

            Sweden is nothing like that….it's a fairy tale.

            The British have nothing to charge Assange with….so unless he's convicted of something he can't be extradited. Only Sweden can provide a charge, and possible conviction.

          • The British have nothing to charge Assange with….so unless he's convicted of something he can't be extradited.

            Is it possible that you just don't understand the meaning of "extradition"? Assange is already in the U.K. If the British DID have something to charge him with they wouldn't need to extradite him, he's ALREADY THERE. Extradition doesn't happen AFTER a person is convicted it happens BEFORE a person is convicted. You extradite someone who's in another country back to your country to face questioning or charges. Moving someone who's already been convicted from one country to another isn't an extradition, that's just the movement of a prisoner (either a prisoner swap or a repatriation or some such, but not an extradition).

            Only Sweden can provide a charge, and possible conviction.

            OK, but that's an argument for why Sweden has asked that he be extradited to Sweden. Your contention seems to be that those charges are all a rouse, and that as soon as he's extradited to Sweden the Americans will ask Sweden to extradite him to the U.S. to face additional charges there. My question continues to be this: If the U.S. wants to get their hands on Assange, why would they secretly arrange for him to be sent to Sweden, and then ask the Swedes to extradite him to the U.S.? Why not just charge him today and ask the BRITISH to extradite him to the U.S.?

            The whole reasoning behind this conspiracy theory is that the U.S. needs to get Assange to Sweden because the Swedes will extradite him to the U.S., while the British would refuse a similar extradition request. What I want to know is, where's the evidence that the British would refuse an extradition request from the U.S. that the Swedes would comply with? If it's true that the Americans are secretly conspiring with the Swedes to force Assange to go back to Sweden, why are they doing that? What makes Sweden more likely to comply with a U.S. extradition request for Assange than the United Kingdom would be?

          • Is it possible you don't understand any of this?

            The Brits don't want to extradite him from anywhere….the Americans do!

            You can't ship someone out of your country on a whim….there has to be a reason….and the Brits don't have one. Sweden may.

            But first Sweden has to charge, try, and convict him. THEN the US can ask for him…..they have no grounds at the moment, but they're looking for any way they can find.

            This has been in the courts and the media for months….and obviously, seeing the shrinkage on this thread, can't be argued here any further. But it's all available on Google.

          • Even if the Swedes don't want him, they still can't simply hand him over to the US unless they can show grounds for extradition. About the best they can do is send him back to a country where he has citizenship or landed immigrant status.

          • Have the Americans charged Assange with anything? No. Have the Americans made a request to extradite Assange from the UK? No.

            You don't have a grasp on the meaning of extradition. If the Americans want to extradite Assange they will make a request to whatever state is holding him. Whether he has been charged in Sweden (he hasn't yet) or if he has committed a crime in the UK is superfluous.

            @Original Emily1 – You need to start thinking critically instead of blindly accepting the paranoid delusions of a hypocritical megalomaniac.

          • The Brits don't want to extradite him from anywhere….the Americans do!

            You don't think that this statement flies in the face of the fact that the Brits are actually extraditing him to Sweden, whereas the Americans haven't even bothered to suggest publicly that they want to extradite him from anywhere for anything?

            first Sweden has to charge, try, and convict him. THEN the US can ask for him

            Technically the Swedes don't have to do any such thing. They could question him for a bit, decide not to charge him and THEN extradite him to the U.S. (assuming the Americans actually ask for him to be extradited). I do agree that if the Swedes want to try him first, and they have him in their custody, that they might not agree to extradite him to the U.S. until they're finished with him, but in that instance "when they're finished with him" could just as easily be "when they decide to drop the charges" or even "when he's found not guilty" as "when he's convicted".

            That said, thank you for your reply. It does confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.

          • EVEN IF he is convicted in Sweden, the US still can't extradite him. To extradite him, they need to charge him under US laws and then make a case for extradition in the courts where Assange is currently located. The US has an extradition treaty with the UK; if they had grounds to extradite him they could do so as easily there as in Sweden.

            The idea that having him charged for a crime committed in Sweden makes it easier to extradite him to the US is utter nonsense.

          • Apparently you haven't followed any of this, so there's no point in further comment.

          • I've followed your blathering… and laughed mightily. You don't have clue one about extradition laws.

          • The only caveat I would add is that I'm not sure the Americans technically have to charge him to attempt to extradite him. After all, the Swedes haven't actually charged him yet, and the U.K.'s going to extradite him there, because he's wanted on a material witness warrant. I think the U.S. could similarly issue a material witness warrant against Assange and then ask that he be extradited, without actually charging him with something, just like the Swedes are.

            What's absolutely clear to me is that there's no reason that the Americans would have any more trouble extraditing Assange from the U.K. than they would extraditing him from Sweden. I'm quite positive that any extradition request that would be complied with by Sweden would be complied with by the U.K., so the notion that the Americans are secretly maneuvering to get Assange to Sweden is not only paranoid, it makes no logical sense. The Americans have no need to maneuver things so that Assange ends up in Sweden. Anything the Americans want to do vis a vis Assange they could do just as easily if he's in the U.K. as they could if he was in Sweden.

          • Shhh… you blow th whistle on the invason plans and it won't just be Homeland Security you'll have to wory about! Them aliens have that nasty mind-wipe technology… and the ability to plant child porn on your PC for the local cops to find…

        • Getting pretty bad at the ol' Assange house when you have to resort to flogging, T-shirts and Umberella's on the internet to raise money for your legal defence….I mean you would figure a man with his level of intelligence and of course his '' fame'' that he would have a few dollars squirreled away….

          • You can also buy Bieber, Beatle, and Lady Gaga gear online.

          • True, but thats what they do..they are entertainers, part of the business……Assange is the Poster Boy for Free Speech ( and '''alleged ''' Sex offender. ) now selling Sweatshirts on the Internet because he '' has to''…..not because it is part of his business venture…..

          • You can buy all that same gear to support any cause you like, and lots of people support Wikileaks.

            You can buy all that same gear to support 'Anonymous' and the hackers

            You can buy the gear to support the protesters in Wisconsin for that matter.

            Teabaggers sell the same stuff.

            Amazing how quickly Cons turn on the idea of making money

          • I don't think it's really the point of Assange making money…It's what he '' has to '' make money for….

          • Lawyer's fees for one. They're enormous. Travel, lodging….the usual.

          • Yes, but where he is going you really don't need much money, Postage Stamps , Tobacco,.maybe a couple of bucks to pay off the big hairy guy in cell # 27 …Just the basics…

          • For a condom? Be real.

          • Yeppers …Stranger things have happened, besides, Sweden is just a stepping stone to the good ol' U.S.of A….

          • Well it's not likely to with the whole world watching.

            Interesting to know that you'd approve this attack on freedom of the press, though.

            Cons never practice what they preach.

          • Maybe it's just me, but I think that last line of TN's was a well-deserved mocking…

          • Who me ???

          • Well…I suspect where he's going to end up…Assange is going to wish he had a few condoms with him.

            Poetic justice anyone?

          • A man promoting open and accountable democratic govt, and you think he belongs in jail being raped…

            What HAVE you allowed into your moral code?

          • Assange is a hypocrite who holds himself to a standard which differs to the standard with which he holds others. If Assange believes in transparency, accountability, and democratic rule of law why then did he flee Sweden when Swedish authorities attempted to question him (a reason cited by the judge as central to his extradition) with regard to serious allegations of sexual assault and rape?

            Mr. Mushman's comments demonstrate that his understanding of accountability for one's own actions far exceeds that of Assange who has frequently demonstrated that his moral code favors only his personal aggrandizement and none of the values he claims to advocate.

          • He didn't.

            He answered all their questions, told them he was travelling to the UK, and gave them his address and phone number.

            The allegations are political, not serious

          • Then why are Swedish authorities reporting that Assange has refused to face questions and "… to submit to interviews about the allegations" (CTV.ca Feb 24, 11)? If his relationship with the alleged victims was completely consensual as Assange states he should act accordingly with his mantra of transparency and accountability by submitting to the rule of law of democratic Sweden.

            Put simply Assange is a hypocrite who believes he should be held to a double standard and displays complete contempt for the values which he purports to espouse.

          • Yes, why would they do that when it's all on record?

            Interesting that you fuss about Assange, but have no trouble with the criminal behavior of govts he's exposed.

          • Criminal behavior such as assisting peasant farmers in Afghanistan? What about publicly listing the names and residences of peasant families who had been working with their local government to better their community?

            If you follow your logic freedom of expression means that Miep Gies should have been publicly exposed for hiding Anne Frank.

            If you cast for red herring you'll probably reel one in…

          • LOL govt criminal behavior is not a red herring….it's the whole point.

            I realize you're trying to divert attention from that, but it's not working

          • No, I was just highlighting the fact that Assange does not believe in transparency, accountability, or the democratic rule of law as is witnessed by his refusal to answer questions regarding his alleged sexual assault and rape of two women, and by his outing of powerless peasant families. It is hypocritical for Assange to demand such principles from the state when his actions are antithetical to the values he purports to espouse.

          • Oh look…a bright shiny object

            Sorry, not biting

          • Assange is a megalomaniac who cares nothing of transparency, accountability, or the democratic rule of law. His lawyer's claims that Sweden has excessively strict sexual assault laws suggest that Assange has indeed sexually assaulted and raped his alleged victims by Swedish but not Assange's own standards. If a foreign citizen enters a state and violates its laws they are held to the same measure as its own citizens and government. This is the democratic rule of law, this is accountability.
            The fact the Wikileaks staffers are fleeing in droves and its recent attempt to capitalize on its notoriety through merchandising (ex. t-shirts with Assange's face) underscore its movement from a forum for whistle-blowers to a forum for Assange's personal aggrandizement and monetary benefit. As Wikileaks drifts from its mandate, it will fade to obscurity along with its founder inmate number…

          • Wikileaks is releasing material today….as it has done all along.

            See if you can get your money back on the snake oil you bought.

          • I read the media from all over the world, thanks….and the person in the article you cite was covered long ago upthread.

          • That may be true…but it is obvious that critical thinking is desperately needed in the synthesis of your arguments. Your threads are quite quickly devolving into a series of dogmatic statements buttressed by ad hominem attacks.

          • The big hairy guy in cell # 27 doesn't look at it as rape….he calls it '' bonding '' with the skinny little blonde guy……

          • Nice to know Cons back rape and political prisioners.

          • @Emily1…I didn't say that I support rape or political prisoners,, I am just stating what '' could '' happen if he was to go to the CrowBar Hotel…..

          • Oh it's quite clear you're overjoyed about it.

            I just hope you're not passing yourself off as a christian….you're not doing Cons much good either.

          • @ Oh c'mon Emily, your grasping at straws now..even your better than that …I am just stating the facts, Maa'm…just stating the facts….

          • So far you haven't stated any facts.

            You've merely rubbed your hands in glee that a political prisoner could be raped in jail.

          • Again …the facts…I am not ''gleeful '' of the fact that Prisoners are raped in jail…just telling it like it is…besides in a lot of cases it is consensual, so as Harvey Musman said, Assange will probably wish he has a few condoms…..

          • No, you are telling it like you wish it was.

          • No, I'm telling it with a smidgeon of satire thrown in…..

          • Another one involved in 'Bright shiny object Syndrome'

          • Naaah, I prefer to call it humor, but the facts remain the same…yes ?

          • You haven't given any facts….just your 'humour' about prision rape of people you don't like.

          • Fact : Prisoners do get raped by fellow Prisoners…Fact . Plain and simple ''Fact "..can't deny it !

          • "A man promoting open and accountable democratic govt" – good one!

            Assange is solely interested in promoting Assange. Wikileaks is just a means to an end.

          • @ HarveyMushman….Poetic justice….The best kind….

  3. It sounds fishy to millions of people. The US is trying to shut him down, and it's not working. The UK is making a last-ditch attempt here.

  4. This is Assange doing his best american impersonation:
    http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/4C72KC/www.good.is/

    I guess the never ending pockets are drying up, defence fund anyone? And yes most likely he is going to the US, most likely will spend the rest of his life in jail.

  5. I was giving Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt, but now I doubt that it will exist for very long after Assange is locked up. Once you start diverting funds raised for a perceived global good towards an individual's needs your organization is done.

  6. Interesting to know how many Cons are against freedom of the press.

    Btw…the US has nothing they can charge him with…in fact he hasn't even been charged in Sweden.

  7. The concept of Wikileaks was noble just badly executed, here is a link from El Pais, is in spanish though, where the five newspapers directors got together to explain Wikileaks, I used Bing translate for the page which it is pretty good but it does sound like me : )
    <a href="http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=Internal&from=es&to=en&a =http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Wikileaks/nuevo/periodismo/sintoma/ultimos/anos/Internet/elpepusoc/20110223elpepusoc_14/Tes” target=”_blank”>http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=In

  8. I am not against freedom of the press, I am for responsible press, I just think Assange didn`t have it as his best interest, it is all about him! check the link I put above.

  9. But I do think he will end up in jail, they will find something.

  10. Freedom of the press is a guaranteed right….no democracy can function without it.

    Assange has done nothing different than any newspaper publishing leaked documents….something they often do….he's just doing it online. That's not illegal.

    Wikileaks is an organization, not one guy with a laptop, and he's only their current spokesman. Wikileaks will continue with or without him. They have been doing so all this time, even when he was in jail.

    The US has been trying to find a way to nail him, and cannot. Assange isn't even American.

  11. Did you eve read the link? Oh Emily, not even worth it getting into a debate with you, your mind is set, I guess time will tell..

  12. Up until a couple of hours ago I would have agreed with you Emily. However, then I looked at their web site. A couple of things struck me. The "About Wikileaks" does not refer to any Board or oversight process. The "Donation" page has now completely eliminated any distinction between Wikileak's stated objective of transparent journalism leading to better government and the fund to help with Assange's court case in Sweden.

    Could it be Wikileak's responsibility to look after Assange? Well, first you have to buy into the conspiracy theory that the Swedish case is really just the Swedes helping out the Americans.

    Even then, any responsible organization would have to have to publicly disconnect Assange from that decision since he is clearly in conflict.

    Even then, any responsible organization would have to be clear to raise funds specifically for that purpose rather than divert money that was raised with a different intent.

    On the plus side, the web sight has lots of pictures of Julian.

  13. There IS no debate. Assange is doing nothing illegal, this is simply a vendetta.

    And Wikileaks will carry on regardless.

  14. A couple of hours ago you were also condemning Wikileaks.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

    I don't know what your problem is, but neither Assange nor Wikileaks need your approval.

  15. Getting pretty bad at the ol' Assange house when you have to resort to flogging, T-shirts and Umberella's on the internet to raise money for your legal defence….I mean you would figure a man with his level of intelligence and of course his '' fame'' that he would have a few dollars squirreled away….

  16. No, but then again neither does the Church of Scientology, the Nation of Islam, Mothers Against Drunk Driving or any of a number of organizations that profess to be doing good things. And yet I am entitled to have an opinion about each of those organizations, a fairly informed opinion (given what is publicly available). When I formulate my opinion, generally I try to measure their actual performance against their stated objectives as well as the structure of the organization. Is it transparent? Is it accountable?

    So since Assange has made himself a very public figure, indeed he is the sole public face of an organization whose raison d'être is publicity then yes I am entitled to have an opinion of him. Moreover, since WikiLeaks claims to be transforming the nature of modern journalism, government and society, I am entitled to have an opinion of that organization.

  17. Yes, and we now know what your opinion is on freedom of the press.

    And democracy.

  18. Whatever, Blue Man. Like I said, neither Assange nor Wikileaks need your approval, so Cons like you who hate freedom of the press can't do squat about it.

    Here's that link again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

    Try reading it this time. You'll learn something.

  19. If you truly do believe in democracy then I can't imagine how you could agree with what Mr. Assange is doing. Disregard Wikileaks for a second here, the very premise of a democratic justice system is that anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and know that their accusation will be tried fairly. If you are accused of a crime and a judge finds that this accusation has enough merit to deserve further investigation, then it is your democratic duty to face your accusers.

  20. Publishing state dept cables isn't accusing anyone of anything.

  21. Give it a rest, Anon.

    Btw, Kinsella is looking for you.

  22. You can also buy Bieber, Beatle, and Lady Gaga gear online.

  23. Mr. Assange is being accused of sexual assault and rape. That hardly has anything to do with wikileaks.

  24. They want to question him…there are no charges.

    And had you followed this, you'd know the whole thing is groundless.

    As I said upthread it's a vendetta…an attempt to stop Wikileaks, however it hasn't worked

  25. "Cons are against freedom of the press" – Exactly how are you drawing this conclusion from this article? Obama – the head of the US is a liberal and Sweden is a socialist country so if the two are working together to shut down Assange – where are the conservatives in this?

  26. True, but thats what they do..they are entertainers, part of the business……Assange is the Poster Boy for Free Speech ( and '''alleged ''' Sex offender. ) now selling Sweatshirts on the Internet because he '' has to''…..not because it is part of his business venture…..

  27. I have followed this and as far as I can see if these allegations are groundless then there is no reason for him to be against questioning. Why should he not want to clear his name unless he is guilty, or believes himself to be above the law.

  28. Would you like to know what else is groundless? All of the arguements against extradition. He argues that he will not receive a far trial, but this is not grounds against extradition in the European Union because of the European Arrest Warrant which states that this safeguard is not necessary because all EU nations are committed to the right to a fair trial. He argues that without charges there can be no extradition but the material-witness warrant is grounds for extradition, especially in a case where the witness fled the country before being questioned. They say it is unfair to send him off to a foreign country where he does not speak the language, and yet just under 90% of Sweden speaks english. Finally the claims that he will be extradited to the U.S. once there make no sense considering his insistence on staying in the U.K. or going back to Australia, if he were in fact afraid of extradition then why wouldn't he too want to flee these countries who have far greater and long-standing alliances with the U.S. than Sweden, a country known for its neutrality.

  29. Neither Sweden nor Obama are liberal or socialist.

    The very fact they're working together to shut down media should have clued you in, if nothing else did.

  30. You can buy all that same gear to support any cause you like, and lots of people support Wikileaks.

    You can buy all that same gear to support 'Anonymous' and the hackers

    You can buy the gear to support the protesters in Wisconsin for that matter.

    Teabaggers sell the same stuff.

    Amazing how quickly Cons turn on the idea of making money

  31. He answered their questions before he left Sweden, so he knows very well why they want him back.

  32. Nobody issues a European Arrest Warrant over a condom.

    He answered their questions, and told them he was travelling to the UK….they've had his address and phone number all this time.

    It has nothing to do with language.

    Extradition is extradition…your wishes or country of origin don't matter.

    Sweden is not neutral

  33. I don't think it's really the point of Assange making money…It's what he '' has to '' make money for….

  34. Lawyer's fees for one. They're enormous. Travel, lodging….the usual.

  35. Yes, but where he is going you really don't need much money, Postage Stamps , Tobacco,.maybe a couple of bucks to pay off the big hairy guy in cell # 27 …Just the basics…

  36. For a condom? Be real.

  37. Yeppers …Stranger things have happened, besides, Sweden is just a stepping stone to the good ol' U.S.of A….

  38. Well it's not likely to with the whole world watching.

    Interesting to know that you'd approve this attack on freedom of the press, though.

    Cons never practice what they preach.

  39. I believe Swedish neutrality is the official security policy in Sweden, and has been since the early 19th century. "non-participation in military alliances during peacetime and neutrality during wartime." was how a U.S. official described it in, lol, a 2010 U.S. diplomatic cables leak.

    But now this is just splitting hairs, my arguement is that Mr.Assange has no less obligation to adhere to the judicial system than anyone else.

  40. I have completely disregarded anything Assange has had to say after the hypocritical stance he took towards University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan. If Assange is the principled free-speech activist he makes himself out to be then Prof. Flanagan's statement should be regarded as the free expression of his opinion not a criminal act.
    In Dec 2010 Flanagan stated that he thought "…Assange should be assassinated…" to which Assange replied that Flanagan "should be charged with incitement to commit murder."
    Assange who illegally obtained thousands of documents and then selectively released them to the world cannot take a principled stand on free speech if his right to free expression is held somehow higher than Prof. Flanagan's. If Assange is to view Flanagan's comments as criminal then his own comments and actions must be as well.

  41. I have completely disregarded anything Assange has had to say after the hypocritical stance he took towards University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan. If Assange is the principled free-speech activist he makes himself out to be then Prof. Flanagan's statement should be regarded as the free expression of his opinion not a criminal act.
    In Dec 2010 Flanagan stated that he thought "…Assange should be assassinated…" to which Assange replied that Flanagan "should be charged with incitement to commit murder."
    Assange who illegally obtained thousands of documents and then selectively released them to the world cannot take a principled stand on free speech if his right to free expression is held somehow higher than Prof. Flanagan's. If Assange is to view Flanagan's comments as criminal then his own comments and actions must be as well.

    • I started losing my cool with Assange when he, the head of Wikileaks, started talking about how unconscionable it was that documents related to his legal battles had been, wait for it… leaked. I'm also FURIOUS that they chose not to redact the names of civilians who'd been helping the government in Afghanistan from leaked documents, and even left in the COORDINATES OF THEIR VILLAGES. I'm sure the Taliban thanks Julian for the hit list and intel, but I think that was just unforgivable.

      I also found it telling when staffers started leaving Wikileaks in large numbers because they were sick of the site having become a vehicle for Assange's own personal obsessions and vendettas instead of the freedom of information.

  42. Well…I suspect where he's going to end up…Assange is going to wish he had a few condoms with him.

    Poetic justice anyone?

  43. A man promoting open and accountable democratic govt, and you think he belongs in jail being raped…

    What HAVE you allowed into your moral code?

  44. Assange is a hypocrite who holds himself to a standard which differs to the standard with which he holds others. If Assange believes in transparency, accountability, and democratic rule of law why then did he flee Sweden when Swedish authorities attempted to question him (a reason cited by the judge as central to his extradition) with regard to serious allegations of sexual assault and rape?

    Mr. Mushman's comments demonstrate that his understanding of accountability for one's own actions far exceeds that of Assange who has frequently demonstrated that his moral code favors only his personal aggrandizement and none of the values he claims to advocate.

  45. The big hairy guy in cell # 27 doesn't look at it as rape….he calls it '' bonding '' with the skinny little blonde guy……

  46. @ HarveyMushman….Poetic justice….The best kind….

  47. Why?

  48. Assange's lawyers maintain that if he is moved to Sweden to face trial, he could also be extradited to the U.S.

    This is the part I don't get. What makes Assange and his lawyers think that Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. but the U.K. wouldn't??? If the U.S. wanted to have him extradited, they hardly have to wait for him to get to Sweden, they could start extradition proceedings against him RIGHT NOW if they charged him with something.

    I don't think anyone really believes that Assange is any more likely to be extradited to the U.S. from Sweden than he would be to be extradited to the U.S. from any other country that has an extradition treaty with the Americans, including the U.K. I think that point is all a red herring conspiracy theory designed to make the Swedes look sinister. It's certainly not a logical legal argument against extradition to Sweden.

  49. Assange's lawyers maintain that if he is moved to Sweden to face trial, he could also be extradited to the U.S.

    This is the part I don't get. What makes Assange and his lawyers think that Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. but the U.K. wouldn't??? If the U.S. wanted to have him extradited, they hardly have to wait for him to get to Sweden, they could start extradition proceedings against him RIGHT NOW if they charged him with something.

    I don't think anyone really believes that Assange is any more likely to be extradited to the U.S. from Sweden than he would be to be extradited to the U.S. from any other country that has an extradition treaty with the Americans, including the U.K. I think that point is all a red herring conspiracy theory designed to make the Swedes look sinister. It's certainly not a logical legal argument against extradition to Sweden.

  50. For extradition to the US

  51. Nice to know Cons back rape and political prisioners.

  52. He didn't.

    He answered all their questions, told them he was travelling to the UK, and gave them his address and phone number.

    The allegations are political, not serious

  53. @Emily1…I didn't say that I support rape or political prisoners,, I am just stating what '' could '' happen if he was to go to the CrowBar Hotel…..

  54. I started losing my cool with Assange when he, the head of Wikileaks, started talking about how unconscionable it was that documents related to his legal battles had been, wait for it… leaked. I'm also FURIOUS that they chose not to redact the names of civilians who'd been helping the government in Afghanistan from leaked documents, and even left in the COORDINATES OF THEIR VILLAGES. I'm sure the Taliban thanks Julian for the hit list and intel, but I think that was just unforgivable.

    I also found it telling when staffers started leaving Wikileaks in large numbers because they were sick of the site having become a vehicle for Assange's own personal obsessions and vendettas instead of the freedom of information.

  55. Again, why? If the Americans wanted to charge Assange and extradite him, why wouldn't they just charge him and extradite him from the U.K.?

  56. Oh it's quite clear you're overjoyed about it.

    I just hope you're not passing yourself off as a christian….you're not doing Cons much good either.

  57. The laws between the UK and Sweden differ greatly, and Assange isn't American

  58. So you're saying that you think that the U.K. wouldn't extradite Assange to the U.S. but Sweden would? I find that hard to believe.

    On what basis would the U.K. refuse to extradite him that wouldn't also be a basis for Sweden to similarly refuse?

  59. As I said, the laws are different between the two countries.

    None of this nonsense would constitute rape in the UK…and it has to be an extraditable offence.

  60. Then why are Swedish authorities reporting that Assange has refused to face questions and "… to submit to interviews about the allegations" (CTV.ca Feb 24, 11)? If his relationship with the alleged victims was completely consensual as Assange states he should act accordingly with his mantra of transparency and accountability by submitting to the rule of law of democratic Sweden.

    Put simply Assange is a hypocrite who believes he should be held to a double standard and displays complete contempt for the values which he purports to espouse.

  61. Yes, why would they do that when it's all on record?

    Interesting that you fuss about Assange, but have no trouble with the criminal behavior of govts he's exposed.

  62. Criminal behavior such as assisting peasant farmers in Afghanistan? What about publicly listing the names and residences of peasant families who had been working with their local government to better their community?

    If you follow your logic freedom of expression means that Miep Gies should have been publicly exposed for hiding Anne Frank.

    If you cast for red herring you'll probably reel one in…

  63. None of this nonsense would constitute rape in the UK.

    Maybe, but the U.K. are going to extradite him to Sweden noentheless aren't they? What you seem to be arguing is that Sweden is more likely to extradite him to the U.S. than the U.K., and you're basing this argument on the fact that the U.K. is willing to extradite him to Sweden to face questioning about something that likely wouldn't be a crime in the U.K. How does that make any sense?

    How does the U.K.'s decision to extradite Assange to Sweden suggest in any way that they WOULDN'T extradite him to the U.S., if such a request were ever made?

  64. LOL govt criminal behavior is not a red herring….it's the whole point.

    I realize you're trying to divert attention from that, but it's not working

  65. Probably. But it's Swedish law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to Sweden for questioning.

    Sweden is more likely than the UK to send him to the US….

  66. @ Oh c'mon Emily, your grasping at straws now..even your better than that …I am just stating the facts, Maa'm…just stating the facts….

  67. So far you haven't stated any facts.

    You've merely rubbed your hands in glee that a political prisoner could be raped in jail.

  68. You keep saying that "Sweden is more likely than the UK to send him to the U.S." but what I'd like to know is why you think that's true? You can say it again and again but that doesn't make it a fact. I've heard this suggestion made before, but what I have yet to hear is anyone explain why it might be true.

    I can't just accept that Sweden is more likely than the UK to send Assange to the U.S. because Emily and Assange's lawyers say so.

    To put it another way, if it's true that "it's Swedish law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to Sweden" why would it not also be true, if the Americans asked the Brits to extradite him to the U.S. that "it's American law in question, not British, so all the Brits can do is send him to America"???

  69. No, I was just highlighting the fact that Assange does not believe in transparency, accountability, or the democratic rule of law as is witnessed by his refusal to answer questions regarding his alleged sexual assault and rape of two women, and by his outing of powerless peasant families. It is hypocritical for Assange to demand such principles from the state when his actions are antithetical to the values he purports to espouse.

  70. Oh look…a bright shiny object

    Sorry, not biting

  71. "the very fact they're working together…should have clued you in"

    What may have confused Healthcare Insider a bit here is the absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever that the Obama administration and the Swedes are actually working together. It's possible that HI waits to see empirical evidence that something is actually happening before declaring that it's a "fact" that said thing is happening.

    There's certainly a prominent conspiracy theory that the Americans are manipulating things with the Swedes behind the scenes, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that suggests that this is true. I think a lot of conspiracy theorists will be sorely disappointed when Assange shows up in Sweden and the Americans STILL don't charge him with anything, let alone try to extradite him.

  72. Because Assange hasn't broken any laws in the UK….he isn't even wanted for questioning there on the POSSIBLE breaking of laws.

    Sweden wants him for questioning, so that's all the UK can deal with.

    If the US wants him…then they have to deal with Sweden, not the UK.

    And at the moment the US can't nail him from either country, although they're looking for a way to do so.

    But Sweden would be likely to send him if the Americans wanted him.

    Sweden and the US are very close.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality#T

  73. Again …the facts…I am not ''gleeful '' of the fact that Prisoners are raped in jail…just telling it like it is…besides in a lot of cases it is consensual, so as Harvey Musman said, Assange will probably wish he has a few condoms…..

  74. No, you are telling it like you wish it was.

  75. Sigh.
    "Assange fears that being taken to Sweden will make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of the US embassy cables.

    Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for any onward extradition. No charges have been laid by the US, though it is investigating the website's activities"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/24/julia

  76. No, I'm telling it with a smidgeon of satire thrown in…..

  77. Another one involved in 'Bright shiny object Syndrome'

  78. So, the fact that the Swedes apparently worked secretly with the U.S. in the 50s and 60s on efforts to prevent the invasion of Sweden by the Soviet Union is somehow evidence that the Swedes are working secretly with the Americans today on efforts to send Assange to the U.S.?

    By that logic the fact that the Manhattan Project was kept secret in the 1940s is evidence that the Americans are currently engaged in secret negotiations with aliens to invade Alpha Centuri.

  79. "The defence argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not extraditable. The judge says the three alleged offences against Miss A (sex assault and molestation) meet the criteria for extradition offences and a fourth against Miss B, an allegation of rape, "would amount to rape" in this country (the defence had disputed this)."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/feb/24/

  80. Assange is a megalomaniac who cares nothing of transparency, accountability, or the democratic rule of law. His lawyer's claims that Sweden has excessively strict sexual assault laws suggest that Assange has indeed sexually assaulted and raped his alleged victims by Swedish but not Assange's own standards. If a foreign citizen enters a state and violates its laws they are held to the same measure as its own citizens and government. This is the democratic rule of law, this is accountability.
    The fact the Wikileaks staffers are fleeing in droves and its recent attempt to capitalize on its notoriety through merchandising (ex. t-shirts with Assange's face) underscore its movement from a forum for whistle-blowers to a forum for Assange's personal aggrandizement and monetary benefit. As Wikileaks drifts from its mandate, it will fade to obscurity along with its founder inmate number…

  81. Wouldn't be hard to do by the sound of it.

  82. The US and Sweden are very close….and the facts from the beginning of this vendetta against Assange have made that clear time and again.

    If you want to wander off into la-la land, it's your choice.

  83. Wikileaks is releasing material today….as it has done all along.

    See if you can get your money back on the snake oil you bought.

  84. Naaah, I prefer to call it humor, but the facts remain the same…yes ?

  85. I read the media from all over the world, thanks….and the person in the article you cite was covered long ago upthread.

  86. You haven't given any facts….just your 'humour' about prision rape of people you don't like.

  87. I don't deny that the U.S. and Sweden are very close. The Swedes are awesome, so they're pretty close with everyone. That said, aren't the U.S. and the U.K. EVEN CLOSER? I still don't understand this argument that the Swedes are likely to extradite Assange to the U.S. but the British aren't.

  88. That may be true…but it is obvious that critical thinking is desperately needed in the synthesis of your arguments. Your threads are quite quickly devolving into a series of dogmatic statements buttressed by ad hominem attacks.

  89. You have an image of Sweden as being left-wing socialists who are wonderfully open and progressive.

    Sweden is nothing like that….it's a fairy tale.

    The British have nothing to charge Assange with….so unless he's convicted of something he can't be extradited. Only Sweden can provide a charge, and possible conviction.

  90. The British have nothing to charge Assange with….so unless he's convicted of something he can't be extradited.

    Is it possible that you just don't understand the meaning of "extradition"? Assange is already in the U.K. If the British DID have something to charge him with they wouldn't need to extradite him, he's ALREADY THERE. Extradition doesn't happen AFTER a person is convicted it happens BEFORE a person is convicted. You extradite someone who's in another country back to your country to face questioning or charges. Moving someone who's already been convicted from one country to another isn't an extradition, that's just the movement of a prisoner (either a prisoner swap or a repatriation or some such, but not an extradition).

    Only Sweden can provide a charge, and possible conviction.

    OK, but that's an argument for why Sweden has asked that he be extradited to Sweden. Your contention seems to be that those charges are all a rouse, and that as soon as he's extradited to Sweden the Americans will ask Sweden to extradite him to the U.S. to face additional charges there. My question continues to be this: If the U.S. wants to get their hands on Assange, why would they secretly arrange for him to be sent to Sweden, and then ask the Swedes to extradite him to the U.S.? Why not just charge him today and ask the BRITISH to extradite him to the U.S.?

    The whole reasoning behind this conspiracy theory is that the U.S. needs to get Assange to Sweden because the Swedes will extradite him to the U.S., while the British would refuse a similar extradition request. What I want to know is, where's the evidence that the British would refuse an extradition request from the U.S. that the Swedes would comply with? If it's true that the Americans are secretly conspiring with the Swedes to force Assange to go back to Sweden, why are they doing that? What makes Sweden more likely to comply with a U.S. extradition request for Assange than the United Kingdom would be?

  91. Fact : Prisoners do get raped by fellow Prisoners…Fact . Plain and simple ''Fact "..can't deny it !

  92. Is it possible you don't understand any of this?

    The Brits don't want to extradite him from anywhere….the Americans do!

    You can't ship someone out of your country on a whim….there has to be a reason….and the Brits don't have one. Sweden may.

    But first Sweden has to charge, try, and convict him. THEN the US can ask for him…..they have no grounds at the moment, but they're looking for any way they can find.

    This has been in the courts and the media for months….and obviously, seeing the shrinkage on this thread, can't be argued here any further. But it's all available on Google.

  93. Can't comment on the illegal bit, but their approach IS irresponsible and (IMO) immoral.

    And yes, Emily, I am very aware that Wikileaks has, amongst the dreck they post, put up some valuable information. The problem is with their approach and intent; two wrongs don't make a right.

  94. Shhh… you blow th whistle on the invason plans and it won't just be Homeland Security you'll have to wory about! Them aliens have that nasty mind-wipe technology… and the ability to plant child porn on your PC for the local cops to find…

  95. EVEN IF he is convicted in Sweden, the US still can't extradite him. To extradite him, they need to charge him under US laws and then make a case for extradition in the courts where Assange is currently located. The US has an extradition treaty with the UK; if they had grounds to extradite him they could do so as easily there as in Sweden.

    The idea that having him charged for a crime committed in Sweden makes it easier to extradite him to the US is utter nonsense.

  96. Even if the Swedes don't want him, they still can't simply hand him over to the US unless they can show grounds for extradition. About the best they can do is send him back to a country where he has citizenship or landed immigrant status.

  97. Maybe it's just me, but I think that last line of TN's was a well-deserved mocking…

  98. "A man promoting open and accountable democratic govt" – good one!

    Assange is solely interested in promoting Assange. Wikileaks is just a means to an end.

  99. Apparently you haven't followed any of this, so there's no point in further comment.

  100. Have the Americans charged Assange with anything? No. Have the Americans made a request to extradite Assange from the UK? No.

    You don't have a grasp on the meaning of extradition. If the Americans want to extradite Assange they will make a request to whatever state is holding him. Whether he has been charged in Sweden (he hasn't yet) or if he has committed a crime in the UK is superfluous.

    @Original Emily1 – You need to start thinking critically instead of blindly accepting the paranoid delusions of a hypocritical megalomaniac.

  101. I've followed your blathering… and laughed mightily. You don't have clue one about extradition laws.

  102. The Brits don't want to extradite him from anywhere….the Americans do!

    You don't think that this statement flies in the face of the fact that the Brits are actually extraditing him to Sweden, whereas the Americans haven't even bothered to suggest publicly that they want to extradite him from anywhere for anything?

    first Sweden has to charge, try, and convict him. THEN the US can ask for him

    Technically the Swedes don't have to do any such thing. They could question him for a bit, decide not to charge him and THEN extradite him to the U.S. (assuming the Americans actually ask for him to be extradited). I do agree that if the Swedes want to try him first, and they have him in their custody, that they might not agree to extradite him to the U.S. until they're finished with him, but in that instance "when they're finished with him" could just as easily be "when they decide to drop the charges" or even "when he's found not guilty" as "when he's convicted".

    That said, thank you for your reply. It does confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.

  103. The only caveat I would add is that I'm not sure the Americans technically have to charge him to attempt to extradite him. After all, the Swedes haven't actually charged him yet, and the U.K.'s going to extradite him there, because he's wanted on a material witness warrant. I think the U.S. could similarly issue a material witness warrant against Assange and then ask that he be extradited, without actually charging him with something, just like the Swedes are.

    What's absolutely clear to me is that there's no reason that the Americans would have any more trouble extraditing Assange from the U.K. than they would extraditing him from Sweden. I'm quite positive that any extradition request that would be complied with by Sweden would be complied with by the U.K., so the notion that the Americans are secretly maneuvering to get Assange to Sweden is not only paranoid, it makes no logical sense. The Americans have no need to maneuver things so that Assange ends up in Sweden. Anything the Americans want to do vis a vis Assange they could do just as easily if he's in the U.K. as they could if he was in Sweden.

  104. Who me ???

  105. I continue to fail to see what your reasoning is on this whole Sweden-U.S. business. Yes that is the swedish neutrality page, the exact one where I got my information from regarding the fact that to this day Sweden continues to act as a neutral country.
    On the page that describes foreign policy of the U.S. Sweden is not even mentioned as being an ally. And yet the U.K. is referred to as being its 'most important bilateral relationship in the world.' with both countries investing hundreds of billions in the partnership. Meanwhile Australia is described as having 'ascended to one of the closest one or two allies of the U.S. on the planet.

Sign in to comment.