Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[News_Editor]

Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

2011-11-03 05:34:30 GMT+7 (ICT)

LONDON (BNO NEWS) -- A London court on Wednesday morning dismissed an appeal by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden where he faces allegations of rape and sexual molestation.

Assange, 40, was arrested in December 2010 at a London police station where he arrived by appointment. He is wanted in Sweden on accusations of sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape, unrelated to his work for the controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks which brought diplomatic earthquakes to the United States when it began releasing classified documents it had obtained.

According to police statements in Sweden, two women met with Assange in August 2010 and both had unprotected sex with him over the course of several days. They later spoke with each other and discovered that they had both slept with him while not using a condom.

After this discovery, the women walked into a police station together to report the events. According to police documents, the women feared that they had received a sexually transmitted disease (STD) from Assange. One of the women also said Assange had sex with her while she slept, meaning she was unable to give consent.

The President of the Queen's Bench Division, Sir John Thomas, said it is clear that "the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."

According to the woman's statements, she attended lunch with Assange on August 14, 2010, and after flirting over lunch, the pair went out and ended up in a movie theater where they kissed and fondled. Two days later, she contacted Assange and invited him to her house and later had sex on a couple of occasions with a condom. However, she later fell asleep.

"Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom," the judgment said. "The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom."

The judgement continues by saying that "it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep."

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

Following his arrest in London, Assange was later granted conditional bail while he awaited a decision on whether he should be extradited to Sweden to face the allegations. His surety was set at 240,000 British pounds ($380,000) and Assange was ordered to submit to a curfew from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. He also surrendered his passport and has to report to a police station every day at 6 p.m.

One of the reasons why Assange filed an appeal against his extradition is because Swedish prosecutors have not formally charged him with a crime. But the London court ruled this was irrelevant, saying defendants in Sweden are charged in a late stage during the prosecution.

"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter," Thomas said in his ruling. "In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr. Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have commenced."

Assange is expected to appeal the ruling in the United Kingdom's highest court.

"I have not been charged of any crime in any country," Assange said following the judgment. "Despite this, the European Arrest Warrant is so restrictive that it prevents U.K. courts from considering the facts of the case, as judges have made clear here today."

"We will be considering our next step in the days ahead," Assange stated, adding that "no doubt there will be many attempts made to try to spin these proceedings as they occurred today but they were merely technical."

Assange has claimed that the cases have been politically-linked, arguing that the sexual encounters with the two women in Sweden were consensual after they allowed him to say in their apartments.

Wikileaks' first big scoop was on April 5, 2010 when it released a classified video which showed a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq which left several civilians killed, including two unarmed Reuters journalists. Assange previously said he had been told to expect 'dirty tricks' from the Pentagon, including 'sex traps' to ruin his reputation.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-11-03

[Ulysses G.]

It is his big chance to face justice.

[rotary]

What a strange case, looks like they are after him anyway they can. I hope he does not have any criminal things in his back ground like jay walking, spitting on the side walk, or speeding in his car. ha ha He needs to be in jail but he needs to be convicted for what he did, not just any charge so they can get him behind bars.

[Ulysses G.]

He needs to be in jail but he needs to be convicted for what he did, not just any charge so they can get him behind bars.

One step at a time.

[MikeyIdea]

Excellent - because he will get a fair trial in Sweden, jf he is innocent according to Swedish law, then he will go free

Also Excellent opportunity for the world to understand that local law is king

[BlackJack]

you need to look at the game play

UK in bed with USA

USA want Assange in their attempt to cut off the head of Wikileaks

Assange is taken to Sweden where again he will be duped by the courts or on ground where the USA can nab him

In the USA Assange can face the death penalty for the leaks of confidential information

this will certainly put the fear into anyone else contemplating a similar media channel

Most donation channels have been cut off to Wikileaks. Mastercard, paypal etc all be told to stop any money credit going to Assange. Bit strange isnt it.

I hope that Wikileaks will continue with someone brave enough to take Assange's place. If so then others amy or will dump info straight onto the internet.

Its a very dirty game being played now and this is why many countries are trying to shut down or heavily censor the internet. They know its power. We have just witnessed 3 countries being brought down through the use of the internet. I bet the kid that made Facebook never dreamed that he would be a history changer.

The USA has made every effort to censor the internet and successfully passed many bills through the house to listen in, track people, etc- so much for the 1st ammendment. Its a myth and doesnt exist.

Every day kids find a way around these blocks so the info will continue to flow and the USA will spend billions on trying to stop it.

Good Luck Assange.

[Wallaby]

It is his big chance to face justice.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

What is he to face justice for exactly?

What has he been charged with? The correct answer is....nothing.

His extradition is for questioning. Swedish authorities could have questioned him in the UK but refused. Therefore, I believe conspiracy theories hold a bit more weight in this instance. Not that I have a particular theory yet.

[Wallaby]

Excellent - because he will get a fair trial in Sweden, jf he is innocent according to Swedish law, then he will go free

Also Excellent opportunity for the world to understand that local law is king

I would not like to be subject to any law involving sex in Sweden. In other westernised countries we pretty well know what has happened if convicted or rape. Not Sweden, their interpretation is very loose and not what we would actuall say was rape.

[chooka]

It is his big chance to face justice.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

What is he to face justice for exactly?

What has he been charged with? The correct answer is....nothing.

His extradition is for questioning. Swedish authorities could have questioned him in the UK but refused. Therefore, I believe conspiracy theories hold a bit more weight in this instance. Not that I have a particular theory yet.

It is politically motivated. Yes they could have questioned him and charged him in England over the allegations and then filed for extradition on charges. He has not been charged with any offence in sweden only wanted for questioning. The U.S can't get thier hands on him in England but they can in Sweden so extradite him for questioning, no charges will be laid and then the U.S will pounce.

P.s For the over sensitive yanks, that is not American bashing and I appologise if it appears that way.

Edited November 3, 2011 by chooka

[Flatouthruthefog]

It is his big chance to face justice.

With the greatest of respect, U (and I mean that most sincerely folks) I think you underestimate the power of the American thumb under which almost all of western Europe tries to function.

From what we have heard so far, there is 'not one jot nor one tittle' of real evidence, let alone proof, of Mr A's so-called sex offences. After an earlier hearing, it was reported that both women had dates with him AFTER the alleged offences, and one even held a party in her apartment in his honour. He must have been good, as well as welcome!

VITALLY I do hope Mr A's lawyer has noticed something I noticed in the first post here!

The Judge in England, talking of the difference in procedures and why Sweden had not yet charged him, said ".......if what Mr A had done had been done in England or Wales....."

That vital phrase "HAD DONE" is a totally clear, advance assumption of the man's guilt!

Mr A should be freed immediately and the Judge defrocked. Or whatever they occasionally do in London.

I am sure Mr A is 'a very difficult man-on-a-mission', but I am equally sure he is no fool and no rapist. I wish him well, but am pessimistic.

[MikeyIdea]

It is his big chance to face justice.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

What is he to face justice for exactly?

What has he been charged with? The correct answer is....nothing.

His extradition is for questioning. Swedish authorities could have questioned him in the UK but refused. Therefore, I believe conspiracy theories hold a bit more weight in this instance. Not that I have a particular theory yet.

Wrong

That he has been charged with nothing according to the laws of your country means nothing

It's the law of the country that counts

Edited November 3, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

Excellent - because he will get a fair trial in Sweden, jf he is innocent according to Swedish law, then he will go free

Also Excellent opportunity for the world to understand that local law is king

I would not like to be subject to any law involving sex in Sweden. In other westernised countries we pretty well know what has happened if convicted or rape. Not Sweden, their interpretation is very loose and not what we would actuall say was rape.

Any non-consented sex including while asleep and sex by surprise is considered rape. That's hard, not loose

And it's on the limit of being rediculous IMO, totally agree with that (assuming that you also think so). Still, he will get a fair trial according to Swedish law

Edited November 3, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[Arkady]

"According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her."

This guy is by all accounts from ex-colleagues etc a thoroughly unpleasant individual. However, this sounds somewhat suspicious. If she was so fearful of unprotected sex as to report it as rape, surely she would have had a fit in this situation and pushed him off, rather than go along with it and let him ejaculate which gave her the maximum risk of contracting an STD or getting pregnant, if not on the pill. Going to the police afterwards would not cure her of HIV.

The para below also sounds as if it could easily have been a set up and not something they discovered by chance.

"According to police statements in Sweden, two women met with Assange in August 2010 and both had unprotected sex with him over the course of several days. They later spoke with each other and discovered that they had both slept with him while not using a condom."

I also wonder what evidence would be required by the Swedish court that he had unprotected sex and that she was asleep. Were there any witnesses? Did she have a medical examination immediately afterwards? It sounds like the thinnest of cases.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Arkady

[candyman123]

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote:

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by bonobo
Removed off-color and all capitalized font

[mpoppel]

For those wanting to know more about the court's decision, these are the original court documents:

Edited, 4-page summary of the ruling: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Full, unedited 43-pages ruling: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf

[chuckd]

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote:

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

[chooka]

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote:

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

I think jail is the least of his concerns, he faces the death penalty in the U.S.

Edited November 3, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[Wallaby]

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote:

According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

ChuckD, with all due respect, he hasn't been charged with being a greasy little theif etc. So a personal opinion of what he is really does not have relevence on any guilt. However he has not been charged with anything yet.

[Wallaby]

It is his big chance to face justice.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

What is he to face justice for exactly?

What has he been charged with? The correct answer is....nothing.

His extradition is for questioning. Swedish authorities could have questioned him in the UK but refused. Therefore, I believe conspiracy theories hold a bit more weight in this instance. Not that I have a particular theory yet.

Wrong

That he has been charged with nothing according to the laws of your country means nothing

It's the law of the country that counts

Ok you say I'm wrong.

Please provide a link to indicate exactly what charges have been laid/filed against Assange. You will find there are NONE. The extradition is not for him to face charges, it is for QUESTIONING.

Rape laws in Sweden (of which he hasn't been charged with...yet) are indeed very loose. Consensual sex, but then take the condom off is considered rape, even though the sex is consensual. I'm not sure of other western countries where this is the case.

[midas]

Rape is a sexual assault usually involving some kind of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person will or without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

So how can he or anyone for that matter be charged for rape when these girls have had lot's of sexual intercourse with consent at all times with Assange?

Quote: According to court documents, after falling asleep, the woman was woken up by Assange's penetration of her. She then asked if he was wearing anything, and after answering that he was not, the woman felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. The statement stated she had never had unprotected sex prior to that encounter, detailing that Assange eventually ejaculated inside of her.

LOL So this girl was asleep at the time his dongle was inside her yeah right on. We are to beleave that she only woke up to the point he was already inside her and penetration was happening! and she was so sleepy she couldn't say get off,no I don't want to do this,or can we do this later I'm tired and as for the condom bit lol.

We in the UK many years ago policed the world and for some reason like money gave it to the USA bad move UK.

this is a case of the USA government trying to get him inside jail anyway they can END OF.

Sorry to bust your bubble but your opinion of what constitutes rape is hardly pertinent in Sweden. They will question him under the laws of Sweden and prosecute him or not, as the case might be.

In my opinion, Assange is a cheap thief, publicity hound and likely suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He's a greasy little character.

By the way, does anybody have any proof this is all a set-up by the CIA or any other agency of the US government?

If so, please post it.

but to be held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged and likely to spend up to a year in custody ( because there is no time limit to detention in Sweden ) seems a bit rough?

Fair trial as a ground for challenging the EAW - February Hearing

In the February Hearing, Julian Assange’s lawyers argued that the UK should not extradite him because he would not face a fair trial in Sweden. If extradited, Assange will be:

- Held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

- There is no bail system, so he would remain in detention indefinitely.

- If there is a charge and a trial, it will be held in secret.

- He will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, a fundamental requirement under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 6.1). Three out of the four judges are lay judges, who have been appointed by political parties and have no formal legal training (see Lay Judges).

- The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has not given Julian Assange or his lawyers information on the allegations against him in writing, which violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.

- There has been political interference with the Prime Minister’s statements to the Swedish Parliament during the trial (see Political Interference, and constant press attention has been given to the complainants’ lawyer (see Media climate in Sweden).

- The bilateral agreement between the United States and Sweden allows Julian Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden (see section on US extradition). Under US custody, Julian Assange risks kidnapping, torture, and execution.

( of course those that can see through all this understand this is the true motive for these shenanigans )

http://www.swedenver...an-Assange.html

Edited November 3, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[MikeyIdea]

It is his big chance to face justice.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

What is he to face justice for exactly?

What has he been charged with? The correct answer is....nothing.

His extradition is for questioning. Swedish authorities could have questioned him in the UK but refused. Therefore, I believe conspiracy theories hold a bit more weight in this instance. Not that I have a particular theory yet.

Wrong

That he has been charged with nothing according to the laws of your country means nothing

It's the law of the country that counts

Ok you say I'm wrong.

Please provide a link to indicate exactly what charges have been laid/filed against Assange. You will find there are NONE. The extradition is not for him to face charges, it is for QUESTIONING.

Rape laws in Sweden (of which he hasn't been charged with...yet) are indeed very loose. Consensual sex, but then take the condom off is considered rape, even though the sex is consensual. I'm not sure of other western countries where this is the case.

Oupps, my apologies Wallaby. Yes, he has not been changed with anything, he is wanted for questioning - my wrong

It's standard procedure that you get arrested if you don't comply with summons for questioning in criminal cases - the extradiction is actually normal procedure too

Hard or loose - Can't agree with you there, I still see laws in this area as hard, not loose. Sweden is most likely the only country in the world which would jail a person for sex by surprise

[Wallaby]

Oupps, my apologies Wallaby. Yes, he has not been changed with anything, he is wanted for questioning - my wrong

It's standard procedure that you get arrested if you don't comply with summons for questioning in criminal cases - the extradiction is actually normal procedure too

Hard or loose - Can't agree with you there, I still see laws in this area as hard, not loose. Sweden is most likely the only country in the world which would jail a person for sex by surprise

No problem Mikey, either way, it will be interesting how this pans out.

[Steely Dan]

I'm reminded of the fact that Al Capone was finally locked up for tax evasion.

[chuckd]

- The bilateral agreement between the United States and Sweden allows Julian Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden (see section on US extradition). Under US custody, Julian Assange risks kidnapping, torture, and execution.[/i]

( of course those that can see through all this understand this is the true motive for these shenanigans )

http://www.swedenver...an-Assange.html

Your last statement from the article is patently ridiculous. The US may request extradition only if Assange has been charged or convicted of one of the crimes indicated in Article II of the formal extradition treaty between the two nations.

Assange has neither been charged by a federal grand jury nor convicted of any crime. Please explain how extradition can be requested by the US and agreed to by the Swedish government when neither of these two conditions exist.

He can not be released to the US "as soon as he arrives in Sweden" due to several factors, not the least of which is he must answer the questions posed him by Swedish authorities and solve that pending legal battle before they will even consider extraditing him to the US. The other factors are, as stated earlier, he has not been charged or convicted by the requesting party, the US.

Following are links that will take you to the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US of 1964 and the supplement to the treaty of 1984.

Don't take your blog entry as fact, read the treaty for yourself and find out.

http://international...14-ust-1845.pdf

http://international...35-ust-2501.pdf

[softgeorge]

Assange is a dead man walking, American politicians have called on him to be hunted down and shot on the spot. If The U.S gets hold of him it is straight to the execution chamber. Most advanced and civilised countries have abolished the death sentence the U.S is years behind these countries. Whoever hands him over the the U.S to be executed will have blood on thier hands.

[midas]

Your last statement from the article is patently ridiculous. The US may request extradition only if Assange has been charged or convicted of one of the crimes indicated in Article II of the formal extradition treaty between the two nations.

Assange has neither been charged by a federal grand jury nor convicted of any crime. Please explain how extradition can be requested by the US and agreed to by the Swedish government when neither of these two conditions exist.

He can not be released to the US "as soon as he arrives in Sweden" due to several factors, not the least of which is he must answer the questions posed him by Swedish authorities and solve that pending legal battle before they will even consider extraditing him to the US. The other factors are, as stated earlier, he has not been charged or convicted by the requesting party, the US.

Following are links that will take you to the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US of 1964 and the supplement to the treaty of 1984.

Don't take your blog entry as fact, read the treaty for yourself and find out.

if it is " patently ridiculous "then can you please clarify the following statement ?

2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular ’extradition’ procedures.

WikiLeaks Julian Assange U.S. Extradition Involving Sweden- Guess What I Found

Edited November 3, 2011 by midas

[bonobo]

This thread is not about western women. Not is it about past actions of the CIA. Please keep on topic, and please keep in mind netiquette with particular regards to posting in all caps, in large fonts, or in contrasting colors.

[midas]

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: Has US already indicted him?

It is entirely possible that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is already under indictment in the US. Grand juries work in secret, and indictments can be sealed, but there have been hints.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1202/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-Has-US-already-indicted-him

Edited November 3, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

Your last statement from the article is patently ridiculous. The US may request extradition only if Assange has been charged or convicted of one of the crimes indicated in Article II of the formal extradition treaty between the two nations.

Assange has neither been charged by a federal grand jury nor convicted of any crime. Please explain how extradition can be requested by the US and agreed to by the Swedish government when neither of these two conditions exist.

He can not be released to the US "as soon as he arrives in Sweden" due to several factors, not the least of which is he must answer the questions posed him by Swedish authorities and solve that pending legal battle before they will even consider extraditing him to the US. The other factors are, as stated earlier, he has not been charged or convicted by the requesting party, the US.

Following are links that will take you to the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US of 1964 and the supplement to the treaty of 1984.

Don't take your blog entry as fact, read the treaty for yourself and find out.

if it is " patently ridiculous "then can you please clarify the following statement ?

2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular ’extradition’ procedures.

WikiLeaks Julian Assange U.S. Extradition Involving Sweden- Guess What I Found

Attorney McNabb claims, in accordance with Article VI of the Supplement, that Assange can be shipped immediately to the US and, seemingly, detained forever.

What he fails to point out is what Article VI actually says so I have copied the Article and will present it to you for clarification:

_______________________________________________________

Article VI

If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b\) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of

prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the

Contracting States.

______________________________________________________

Firstly, the opening sentence states..."If the extradition request is granted...". There have been no indictments issued nor has Assange been found guilty of anything, therefore the US can make no extradition request until such time as the indictment/conviction stipulations are met by the US. If Assange were to arrive in Sweden tomorrow, he could not be released to the US "without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular ’extradition’ procedures." There is no stipulation for immediate release of a wanted person without following the Treaty and Supplement. If I have overlooked it, please point it out to me

Secondly, Article VI, section b calls for a temporary surrender for the purpose of prosecution only. Nowhere does it state the temporary surrender can encompass both trial and the serving of any sentence.

In any eventuality, an extradition must be requested by the US and approved by Sweden before he can be turned over to anybody.

I provided you links to both the treaty and the supplement mentioned by Lawyer McNabb.

It's all there.

PS: I removed your YouTube for brevity's sake.

[chuckd]

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: Has US already indicted him?

It is entirely possible that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is already under indictment in the US. Grand juries work in secret, and indictments can be sealed, but there have been hints.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1202/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-Has-US-already-indicted-him

Your link is nearly one year old and nothing has come out yet.

Certainly it is possible there is a sealed indictment against Assange. It is also possible he will be convicted of any charges that might be filed in Sweden and serve time there.

Frankly his position is not particularly enviable.