Sorry, when did sleeping with two women become an extraditable offence?

Errr, when you slip them a length when they aren't conscious?

That's a crime now? I mean if a tree falls over in the woods right?




Joke

Here's an interview with Assange (from Jan 2012) with the Rolling Stone.

Apologies if it's already been posted. It's quite interesting, particularly the comments about Stratfor (more of which how they conduct business has since come to light).

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-a...

Assange also clarifies the position with Sweden, stating that it would be as easy, if not easier, to extradite him from the UK to the US. He has other reasons, centering around his confidence (or lack thereof) of the Swedish Justice system to not treat him more harshly.

He also mentions Carl Bildt, who has long standing friendship with Karl Rove.

Is there any need to point out the obvious errors and misrepresentations in that article, or are most people aware of them by now?!

Of course, you're correct. But I think he's conscious of the overly harsh treatment he may receive, not based on the crime he is accused for, but for the WL stuff due to the (alleged) close links that the man in charge of justice in Sweden has with the US political machine.

Fair enough. Well, the first 4 paragraphs are largely irrelevant - what is in question is not whether Wikileaks is a good or bad thing, but what should happen to Assange personally.

Saying that Sweden merely wants to question him is a gross distortion of the facts. The way the Swedish legal system operates is that, when they are ready to prosecute someone, they undertake a "second" interview of that person, following which they charge them and the trial has to start within 2 weeks (I think this is correct - I'm no expert but it's my understanding). So, the "questioning" they want to do is essentially a procedural step at the final stage of an investigation pre-trial.

Therefore, as the authorities have reached that stage, the allegations presumably have been thoroughly investigated. It looks like Michael Moore is suggesting that Sweden is a country that "might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system"; surely moving to Sweden would put Assange in the very bosom of the Swedish justice system?!

Moore talks a lot about an investigation, but that is not what it is anymore. The investigation has been done; it is now in the final pre-trial stages.

Extradition decisions are made by the courts, not governments. There are rules governing those extraditions (such as the fact that neither the UK nor Sweden will extradite someone where there is a real chance they face torture or death), but each individual case goes through a process in the courts. Therefore it would be completely inappropriate and unconstitutional to make any guarantees regarding a hypothetical extradition request from the US.

It is incorrect to suggest that it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden. The process and considerations are largely the same between the UK and Sweden.

Only an idiot would be surprised that the US is investigating Wikileaks and potential criminal conduct by Assange. That doesn't mean they want to extradite him, would be able to extradite him or, if they did manange, would do bad things to him.

You can't say that "history dictates" something based on one event that received widespread condemnation in Sweden.

Michael Moore shows a complete lack of understanding of extradition law. For most countries (I think - it's certainly the case in the UK and Sweden) you need to show dual-criminality, among other things. That means the actions complained of would need to also constitute criminal actions were they carried out in this country. Therefore there is no risk of someone being extradited to Russia/China (or even Ecuador, which doesn't exactly have a great reputation for protection rights and freedom of speech) for violating laws which are considered ridiculous in this country.

So, to answer the questions at the end, the Swedish authorities are refusing to question Assange in the UK because that is a waste of time; they want to charge him, which can only be done in Sweden. Neither government can promise not to extradite him to the US because that would be completely unconstitutional and disregards the extradition process altogether - it would be a concern to justice if they did.

This isn't about making a stand for free speech. It's about making a stand for the protection of an alleged rapist.

(I think that's everything!)

I'm not sure he has (a) enough hair any more to be confused with Assange and (b) look quite as pasty faced.

If you read the Rolling Stone interview above, he sets out his reasons. It's kind of why I thought a bit relevant.

It should be pointed out once again that it appears the US have secretly filed papers for his extradition. Not sure how this info came about though.

Also worth noting is that apparently the two woman he is alleged misconduct with were bragging they had slept with him. Never known a woman who was "raped" to go around bragging about it and then claiming rape.