Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
Derek Smith said:
That decision was a bit of a surprise to me.
So unlawful and arbitrary detention. I agree with the decision and see the government's argument, as reported, as derisory. He was detained in the embassy despite his freedom to leave. He would be arrested by the police so he was detained.
From what I understand, the decision came as something of a shock to Jules as well.
Aside from the fact you don't don't think he has any case to answer with regard to his (as George Galloway termed it) failure of "sexual etiquette"; Jules? Bloody Jules? Seriously? So unlawful and arbitrary detention. I agree with the decision and see the government's argument, as reported, as derisory. He was detained in the embassy despite his freedom to leave. He would be arrested by the police so he was detained.
From what I understand, the decision came as something of a shock to Jules as well.
As I stated, I didn't see the decision coming. I thought the finding would have been against him.
But it is clear that he was detained against his will.
What's the problem with me calling him Jules? It is sort of derogatory but that doesn't seem to be your criticism of it.
scherzkeks said:
Zod said:
ou made the assertion in response to BV's rejection of the idea that English courts are subject to political influence. You meant to suggest that ther courts are corrupt. Just part of your worldview that the West and its institutions are bad.
His rejection is based on nothing other than the stated claim that the courts and executive are independent. This does not rule out political pressure or corruption in the institutions being discussed. Your final sentence is off the mark, and so broad as to be meaningless.
Ridley said:
Anyone for a game of arbitrarily detained and seek?
Very good 
One of the UN panel was just "explaining" the basis of their decision. It really made no sense. It didn't seem to take any account of who was responsible for this farce being dragged out fit so long. "Arbitrary" was being judged in terms of the length of time taken by the Swedish investigation without any apparent consideration that they were having to wait to interview Assange because he'd chosen to hide.
Andy Zarse said:
Explain why you think the best place for justice to be served isn't in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction, but apparently on the internet?
It was served initially when the original prosecutor said there was no case. Then it went political. I think you know this.EskimoArapaho said:
You have to ask why does this particular idiot merit the spending of £12m - as opposed to other people also wanted on European arrest warrants...
You think if someone else accused of rape in Sweden decided to hide in a London embassy, we wouldn't feel obliged to hang around outside in case he tried to abscond? beanbag said:
The Mad Monk said:
Mr_B said:
£12m wasted on this idiot.
I don't think so.Demonstrate where the £12m has been spent.
So just to recap.
Sweden investigated the case once and closed it but subsequently reopened the case.
Sweden have refused to guarantee that they would not extradite to US despite their foreign minister acknowledging that they lawfully could not extradite to a country where a death sentence could be handed out.
US have not confirmed that they will not ask for extradition whilst the Swedish case was investigated.
Swedish prosecutors have not charged Assange with anything he is just wanted for questioning, bringing into question the validity of their extradition request in the first place.
Swedish prosecutors consistently refused to travel here to carry out their questioning despite it being done in the past.
Swedish prosecutors have recently agreed to travel here to question but refuse to do it within the Ecuador embassy rendering it a non offer.
I'm with BV, can't see what the guy has got to be paranoid about.
Sweden investigated the case once and closed it but subsequently reopened the case.
Sweden have refused to guarantee that they would not extradite to US despite their foreign minister acknowledging that they lawfully could not extradite to a country where a death sentence could be handed out.
US have not confirmed that they will not ask for extradition whilst the Swedish case was investigated.
Swedish prosecutors have not charged Assange with anything he is just wanted for questioning, bringing into question the validity of their extradition request in the first place.
Swedish prosecutors consistently refused to travel here to carry out their questioning despite it being done in the past.
Swedish prosecutors have recently agreed to travel here to question but refuse to do it within the Ecuador embassy rendering it a non offer.
I'm with BV, can't see what the guy has got to be paranoid about.
Europa1 said:
beanbag said:
The Mad Monk said:
Mr_B said:
£12m wasted on this idiot.
I don't think so.Demonstrate where the £12m has been spent.
As quoted from this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31159594
The Metropolitan Police said the costs were covered by the budget for diplomatic protection, which provides policing for embassies in the UK. So there wasn't an increase in costs but more of a reallocation of costs.
In fact, I also found another document which outlines the following:
The estimated total cost of policing the Ecuadorian embassy between 19th June 2012 to 31 January 2013 is £2.9 million, of which £2.3 million is opportunity costs (Police officer pay costs that would be incurred in normal duties), and £0.6 million additional costs (estimated additional Police overtime as a direct result of deployments at the Ecuadorian embassy).
So...going by that, the cost is actually £3.6 million (based on 3 years). I agree this is a lot but lets hope we sue Assange for the money in wasted police time, however it's also been quoted in the same document no police services have been cancelled or postponed as a result of this operation.
EskimoArapaho said:
Andy Zarse said:
Explain why you think the best place for justice to be served isn't in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction, but apparently on the internet?
It was served initially when the original prosecutor said there was no case. Then it went political. I think you know this.Firstly, the original prosecutor said she "thought" there was no case for rape. Not for sexual molestation. At no point was this allegation and charge dropped.
Secondly, the two women complaining about Assange had their attorney request a review of the decision to terminate [b[part[/b] of the investigation. It was then reinstated upon their information. So no, the case did not "go political". The only possible political aspect of the decision was the prosecutor dropping part of the investigation.
From wiki:
"Complaints and initial investigation[edit]
On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[3][4] went together to the Swedish police in order to track Assange down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after having separate sexual encounters with him.[5] The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor.[6] Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.[7]
The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued the investigation.[8]
After learning of the investigation, Assange said, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."[9]
The preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape was discontinued by Finné on 25 August,[7] but two days later Claes Borgström, the attorney representing the two women, requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate part of the investigation.[7][10]
On 30 August, Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police regarding the allegations of sexual molestation.[11][12] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[9][13][14]
Investigation reinstated[edit]
On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange had applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[15][16] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[15][16][17] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[18] The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.[19]
Arrest warrant[edit]
On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[22] which decided not to hear the case
BoRED S2upid said:
Mr_B said:
£12m wasted on this idiot.
A shocking waste of tax payers money! What if there was a fire in the embassy and they had to evacuate the building? It wouldn't have to be a big fire...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff