Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Finlandia]

Breadvan72 said:

Appalling indeed. Do you have links to the news coverage? Swedish fine thanks to Google translate.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article16779918.ab

http://www.dn.se/sthlm/tonarspojkar-frias-fran-gru...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18575241....

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/28-arig-man-f...

[anonymous-user]

Thanks.

[SamHH]

Breadvan72 said:

Hey, who needs a legal system with trials and evidence and stuff when you can rely on a report by an academic at a very un famous university?

I add that under reporting and under conviction in rape cases are real and serious problems, but I am not sure that source is the strongest basis for an argument.

The first source quoted, Brå, appears to be an agency of the Swedish MoJ. Seems like a legitimate source to me.

Anyway, the purpose of a trial is so different to that of academic research, I'm not sure what point there is in comparing them.

Edited by SamHH on Monday 18th August 19:56

[anonymous-user]

My comments were solely directed to the academic study. Such a study cannot, I suggest, be taken as a reliable indicator of guilt or innocence of an offence.

[Halb]

I reckon he will get scooped up to the US.

If he goes to Sweden, we shall see soon enough.

[anonymous-user]

So, you reckon Sweden and the UK will just ignore EU law, then?

Helpful and accurate summary below:

SamHH said:

Serious question: I read that in the scenario Foppo mentioned Sweden would be obligated by EU law ( 2002/584/JHA art 28(4)) to get permission from the UK government to extradite Assange to the US, and that the UK government would have to follow a similar procedure to if the US had requested his extradition from the UK ( Extradition Act 2003, s 58). Is that correct, and if so, doesn't it make it more difficult for Assange to be extratided from Sweden to the US, two states (Sweden and the UK) having to give their permission?

Re Sam's question: is that correct? Yes, it is.

[Halb]

As I said, we shall see.

[Finlandia]

Breadvan72 said:

My comments were solely directed to the academic study. Such a study cannot, I suggest, be taken as a reliable indicator of guilt or innocence of an offence.

True, or at least not too far off, but then, if one was to cook up a rape charge, where better to do it than in a country with a statistically very low false accusation rate?

[anonymous-user]

The problem with that conspiracy theory is that it appears from what you say that the Swedish Courts have a surprisingly antediluvian attitude to rape cases and a poor conviction rate.

We now have two conspiracy theories running:-

1. It is all a plan to get Assange to Sweden so that the US can grab him. This is bonkers for the reasons indicated above. It would be harder, not easier, for the US to grab Assange from Sweden than from the UK.

2. It is a plan by the Swedish political establishment to revenge itself on Assange. This runs into the difficulty identified above re low conviction rate.

[Finlandia]

The plan is to get JA to the US, he comes to Sweden to stand trial, or as it stands now to a hearing, eventually the case gets closed, JA disappears and spends the rest of his life in Cuba or some bunker in mid west US, while Swedish authorities deny everything.

It's happened before in Sweden, the police and secret service (SÄPO) are known to turn a blind eye now and then, like in the Palme murder or in the case of Stig Bergling the spy who escaped.

[scherzkeks]

Breadvan72 said:

That's the daft bit of the argument. Name the country that is the number one ally and willing helper of the US. A clue: it has an acronym that begins with U and ends with K. Conspiracy theories usually fall down because they have too many needless steps in them. If you are an evil superpower, why do something the hard way when you could do it the easy way?

Your own argument seems dafter than his. If US officials seek to bring Assange to the US to stand trial as Manning did (which appears quite likely), then they would use any available legal (even superficially so) means to do so. There is nothing special about Sweden other than the supposed victims claim they were raped there, and that Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US.

The victims could theoretically come from any country with such a treaty in this scenario, so I don't understand why the idea that the US would seek to extradite Assange from Sweden is any more far fetched than the idea that they would try to extradite him from anywhere else where a treaty is in force. They could do it in the UK, too, if they had legally justifiable grounds, but as it stands he is wanted for questioning in Sweden.

[anonymous-user]

Your argument conveniently ignores the facts that the UK has an extradition treaty with the US and that EU law requires that if Assange goes from the UK to Sweden on an extradition warrant and the US then seeks to extradite him from Sweden both the UK and Sweden must agree to that, and the UK can only agree if a direct extradition UK to US would have been agreed. So, taking Assange to Sweden serves no useful purpose for evil Uncle Sam. It adds complexity and uncertainty. In other words, K I S S.

Your post serves to make good my point that the believer in a loony theory will ignore any amount of facts and logic, because the theory is an article of faith.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th August 14:50

[E24man]

Breadvan72 said:

Your argument conveniently ignores the facts that the UK has an extradition treaty with the US and that EU law requires that if Assange goes from the UK to Sweden on an extradition warrant and the US then seeks to extradite him from Sweden both the UK and Sweden must agree to that, and the UK can only agree if a direct extradition UK to US would have been agreed. So, taking Assange to Sweden serves no useful purpose for evil Uncle Sam. It adds complexity and uncertainty. In other words, K I S S.

Your post serves to make good my point that the believer in a loony theory will ignore any amount of facts and logic, because the theory is an article of faith.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 19th August 14:50

Just extending your point that for the UK to agree to any future extradition by the US of Assange from Sweden, "if a direct extradition UK to US would have been agreed", how would any potential Swedish Conviction of Assange on these rape charges affect the UK's position regarding a US extradition.

Put more simply; the UK obviously hasn't agreed to extradite Assange directly to the US at the moment, but should Assange travel to Sweden, be tried and convicted of rape, and then the US attempt to extradite him, would the UK grounds for denying a direct extradition to the US now be changed in any way by a subsequent conviction of rape in Sweden?

[fido]

Finlandia said:

It's happened before in Sweden, the police and secret service (SÄPO) are known to turn a blind eye now and then, like in the Palme murder or in the case of Stig Bergling the spy who escaped.

{sarcasm mode on} It's okay - the legal experts on here say the EU can prevent that .. {sarcasm mode off}

[anonymous-user]

The EU need do nothing. The question is will Sweden, in the glare of publicity, simply flout EU law (which for this purpose is also Swedish law), and will the UK do likewise. After using public legal processes, will one or both states just resort to secret rendition?

A conviction in Sweden will make no difference to the UK extradition position. There would still have to be valid grounds for a UK to US extradition.

[scherzkeks]

Breadvan72 said:

Your argument conveniently ignores the facts that the UK has an extradition treaty with the US and that EU law requires that if Assange goes from the UK to Sweden on an extradition warrant and the US then seeks to extradite him from Sweden both the UK and Sweden must agree to that, and the UK can only agree if a direct extradition UK to US would have been agreed. So, taking Assange to Sweden serves no useful purpose for evil Uncle Sam. It adds complexity and uncertainty. In other words, K I S S.

Your post serves to make good my point that the believer in a loony theory will ignore any amount of facts and logic, because the theory is an article of faith.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 19th August 14:50

I didn't put forth an argument and I don't necessarily believe that he will be extradited. However, if the US puts in an extradition request, there is no guarantee that he will not be extradited, and the Swedish government has refused to give any guarantee against it. The existing treaties and relationships between the US, UK, and Swedish governments render extradition a distinct possibility, which is why Assange will not leave the embassy without guaranteed safe passage to Ecuador. In other words, he's no idiot.

[Soov535]

scherzkeks said:

Breadvan72 said:

Your argument conveniently ignores the facts that the UK has an extradition treaty with the US and that EU law requires that if Assange goes from the UK to Sweden on an extradition warrant and the US then seeks to extradite him from Sweden both the UK and Sweden must agree to that, and the UK can only agree if a direct extradition UK to US would have been agreed. So, taking Assange to Sweden serves no useful purpose for evil Uncle Sam. It adds complexity and uncertainty. In other words, K I S S.

Your post serves to make good my point that the believer in a loony theory will ignore any amount of facts and logic, because the theory is an article of faith.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 19th August 14:50

I didn't put forth an argument and I don't necessarily believe that he will be extradited. However, if the US puts in an extradition request, there is no guarantee that he will not be extradited, and the Swedish government has refused to give any guarantee against it. The existing treaties and relationships between the US, UK, and Swedish governments render extradition a distinct possibility, which is why Assange will not leave the embassy without guaranteed safe passage to Ecuador. In other words, he's no idiot.

I wonder if we are about to find out what is in the 256 bit encrypted file "insurance.exe"


http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/08/20/whats-w...

[anonymous-user]

Let me try once more s l o w l y. Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US unless the UK would also do so. Thus there is no gain to the US and a possible loss to it if the evil plan inserts the needless step of sending Assange to Sweden. Such a plan confers no benefits. It makes no sense. Why must evil conspiracies always be so plum daft?

If the suggestion is that Sweden will just ignore its own law and punt Assange off, under the eyes of the World media, just how probable is that, and why all the legal process up to now? If the UK is in on the blag, why not just hoik Assange off ages ago before he took refuge with that bastion of liberal and fair government called Ecuador?

[Tonsko]

Soov535 said:

I wonder if we are about to find out what is in the 256 bit encrypted file "insurance.exe"


http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/08/20/whats-w...

I think I like Mark Stockley:

"Gizmodo's groping in the dark stumbles towards the event's timing;

Bradley Manning's sentencing hearing is due to reach a verdict sometime next week. That, and there's always something going on with Edward Snowden.

The first bit is true, having recently been charged Manning is due to be sentenced this week.

I'm less sure about the second part, unless by "going on" Gizmodo meant to say "occupying the attention of 24 hour news by not changing airport"."

[scherzkeks]

Breadvan72 said:

Let me try once more s l o w l y. Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US unless the UK would also do so. Thus there is no gain to the US and a possible loss to it if the evil plan inserts the needless step of sending Assange to Sweden. Such a plan confers no benefits. It makes no sense. Why must evil conspiracies always be so plum daft?

If the suggestion is that Sweden will just ignore its own law and punt Assange off, under the eyes of the World media, just how probable is that, and why all the legal process up to now? If the UK is in on the blag, why not just hoik Assange off ages ago before he took refuge with that bastion of liberal and fair government called Ecuador?

We understood you just fine. Why don't get in touch with Assange? I'm sure he'd be interested in learning how being taken into custody is in his best interest.