Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[chuckd]

I fail to see the relevance of the CIA/Department of State/Department of Defense/Department of Justice involvement in the extradition to Sweden. Is there some reason to belief that if the US wishes to pursue charges that they cannot make their own request directly from the UK?

yes because of a unique arrangement that exists between Sweden and US ( which does not exist between UK and US ),

Sweden can simply meet a request made by the USA for Assange for a " temporary surrender/conditional release regime "

which is less complicated and less onerous than a normal extradition process.

" Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis. It is highly likely that the United States will soon request Julian Assange’s extradition from Sweden and this mechanism will be used while Julian Assange is in Swedish custody."

http://www.swedenver...xtradition.html

Yet here is another opinion on the difficulty of extradition from Sweden. This entire conspiracy argument seems to be a ploy by his attorneys to keep Assange from having to appear in Sweden, not the US.

The article is not taken from the a website named "Justice for Assange".

_______________________________________________________________

Extradition to Sweden may hurt U. S. pursuit of Assange

WASHINGTON - The potential extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to face sex-crime allegations in Sweden could complicate any attempt to quickly try him on U.S. soil for releasing thousands of secret cables on the Internet.

Not only would the U.S. need to come up with creative charges that may be difficult to prove, it also would have to launch a laborious extradition request with Sweden, a country known for protecting asylum seekers.

http://www.dallasnew...-of-assange.ece

[Scott]

By the way, I am not arguing for against his extradition to Sweden. He has every right to fight extradition whether he is guilty of anything or not.

I would question the procedures going on if the US had requested extradition from the UK and been denied.

At this point in the game, the US had better be plugging its leaks and protecting it's information. If Assange and his group can get a hold of sensitive information imagine what a determined foe might do.

[midas]

And any unique agreement between the US and Sweden can be not complied with if the Swedish government believes that someones rights will be violated. They are known to be a bit of a stickler on that.

for the first time in this whole saga I have faith that the UK Supreme Court will have a proper opportunity

to listen to some relevant details that were unable to be present in the first two court cases

and that the prosecutor will be deemed not to be a " judicial authority " according to the interpretation

of the European arrest warrant.

But if I'm wrong and he does go to Sweden I would even be willing to bet money on what happens next

and that Sweden wouldn't care less about this particular person's " rights ".

[TAWP]

And any unique agreement between the US and Sweden can be not complied with if the Swedish government believes that someones rights will be violated. They are known to be a bit of a stickler on that.

That is not true.

You might want to start reading about the case of 2 Egyptians being taken by the national security police, handed over the CIA plane and flown to Egypt, tortured, only to be released later when they where not deemed to be of any real interest...but suffering permanent damages after the brutal torture.

We are not talking water-boarding here, hence the need for CIA to fly them to Egypt,

So, in conclusion, you are incorrect that handing people over the situations where they might be tortured is declined - when US asks for it. As has been proven during the last 50 years on several occasions.

Since this is my country of birth I realize I might have the upper hand regarding day-to-day news, and inside information directly from the sources thanks to family connections, but please don't spread misinformation on this forum.

[Credo]

Are you saying that Assange is in real danger? That the Swedish authorities and Judicial system are conspiring to allow the CIA to come and take him out of Sweden, if he is extradited? What information are they going to get from torturing Assange? I think he's pretty much released everything or he no longer has access to it.

If there was a plan to use some extrajudicial system to obtain the man, why go through all this judicial maneuvering?

[Wallaby]

Classified documents which are the property of the US government.

I think you will find he didn't steal anything. Manning stole the documents, not Assange.

And I too would prefer a round of golf.

Sorry, I should have been linguistically correct by calling him merely a dealer in stolen documents. Was he a thief when he hacked those sites during his teen-age years and was convicted of that crime?

Haven't played golf in over a year. Forethat convinced me I am a hacker so I stopped going out.

Fair enough, but if you charge him for receiving then one would think all the editors that received the leaks and published them should also be charged. Though I would think it a pretty soft charge. As for his hacking, I think by the size of the sentence he received it wasn't considered to be a very bad crime.

Get out on the course. Why worry about what someone with no credentials has to say. We all know real golfers don't talk about others in that way.

[Skywalker69]

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

If it´s against the womans will, it´s rape.Period A no is always a no.

[midas]

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

If it´s against the womans will, it´s rape.Period A no is always a no.

A ' no ' to what exactly ?she said versus he said isn't enough to charge or convict anybody.

if it was a purported no to sexual intercourse then why didn't

the alleged condom show any DNA evidence?

" Stefan Lisinki, DN’s legal reporter, published an article on 3 November 2011 titled "A trial against Assange would be short" referring to the questionable evidence of the broken condom. The condom was submitted 12 days after the sexual encounter. It contains no chromosomal DNA from either complainant AA or Julian Assange. The article was published in the newspaper DN, but only in print. A scan of the article (in Swedish) is available here. Extracts from the article"

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Investigation.html

[Skywalker69]

A no to have sex. I was meaning in general.

[GentlemanJim]

A no to have sex. I was meaning in general.

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later! Be careful about pi**ing your woman off in Sweden, you might find yourself under a rape allegation for your mutually agreed romp a week previously!

[midas]

A no to have sex. I was meaning in general.

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later! Be careful about pi**ing your woman off in Sweden, you might find yourself under a rape allegation for your mutually agreed romp a week previously!

yes indeed! I wonder if these bizarre laws also apply within a marriage ? If so being married to the wrong woman in Sweden

could be like having The Sword of Damocles hanging over you

Edited December 26, 2011 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording. Learn to use the insert feature to respond to a particular part of a post.

[Ulysses G.]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

[TAWP]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

No, it isn't a serious charge in Sweden.

[midas]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

if that was really the case why didn't she just say STOP after she woke up?

[Naam]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

if that was really the case why didn't she just say STOP after she woke up?

because then framing Assange wouldn't have worked.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Naam

[Credo]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

No, it isn't a serious charge in Sweden.

He is being questioned in connection with a possible rape charge. Rape is not a serious crime in Sweden?

[GentlemanJim]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

Well according to the woman Assange had protected sex, but it would appear the condom burst (ever had that happen?). She then brought in the said broken condom nearly two weeks later as proof, it had neither hers nor his DNA on it?? Did he stop when the condom broke, was he even aware? Seems if she was asleep that is pretty difficult to prove, especially with an almost impossible situation of zero DNA on the condom. Not only does the allegation smell fishy but 10 days later the condom would have been ...ooooh errr....

The thing is Ulysees, I also think Assange is a quite unlikeable character, BUT, being totally objective about the allegations, there is something badly wrong with the entire situation. A dislike for someone based on personal characteristics is no reason to see them face accusers who are clearly full of BS, and therefore face potential jail time.

[Ulysses G.]

You are mixing up the two cases. Assange was reportedly told to use a condom with one of the women, but later climbed on when she fell asleep without one - which is a crime in Sweden and should be pretty much everywhere.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

You are mixing up the two cases. Assange was reportedly told to use a condom with one of the women, but later climbed on when she fell asleep without one - which is a crime in Sweden and should be pretty much everywhere.

ah yes that is the one where she " couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time "

" Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

Edited December 27, 2011 by midas

[koheesti]

You are mixing up the two cases. Assange was reportedly told to use a condom with one of the women, but later climbed on when she fell asleep without one - which is a crime in Sweden and should be pretty much everywhere.

ah yes that is the one where she " couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time "

" Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

Just going on memory here, but didn't Miss W get worried when she spoke with the other woman who said the same thing happened to her? If that's the case then it is understandable why the women became worried. Just HOW MANY times has he done this before?

[midas]

You are mixing up the two cases. Assange was reportedly told to use a condom with one of the women, but later climbed on when she fell asleep without one - which is a crime in Sweden and should be pretty much everywhere.

ah yes that is the one where she " couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time "

" Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

Just going on memory here, but didn't Miss W get worried when she spoke with the other woman who said the same thing happened to her? If that's the case then it is understandable why the women became worried. Just HOW MANY times has he done this before?

how can that possibly be relevant to this case?

when you cut through all the bulls**t the bottom line is this ...........

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. "

[Credo]

Considering the discussion in this thread, it would seem that an investigation and possibly a court hearing is needed to resolve it.

[Naam]

You are mixing up the two cases. Assange was reportedly told to use a condom with one of the women, but later climbed on when she fell asleep without one - which is a crime in Sweden and should be pretty much everywhere.

ah yes that is the one where she " couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time "

" Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

Just going on memory here, but didn't Miss W get worried when she spoke with the other woman who said the same thing happened to her? If that's the case then it is understandable why the women became worried. Just HOW MANY times has he done this before?

how can that possibly be relevant to this case?

when you cut through all the bulls**t the bottom line is this ...........

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. "

Midas you are pleading a lost case! what part of "he climbed on her when she was sleeping and because she was sleeping she did not realise that he climbed on her" is it you don't understand?

[TAWP]

She was a willing participant according to the reports. She said 'No' about 3 days later!

Actually, Assange is accused of having had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep after she had made him use protection while awake. This is a serious charge in Sweden as one could pick up a sexual disease or become pregnant.

No, it isn't a serious charge in Sweden.

He is being questioned in connection with a possible rape charge. Rape is not a serious crime in Sweden?

He is not accused of rape [yet] that charge was dropped. Now they are suddenly wanting him for questioning after some politicians got involved and they might use the charge 'rape' as bait but ask any lawyer or prosecutor worth their salt and hid action isn't rape.

Edited December 27, 2011 by TAWP

[Credo]

Thanks for the clarification on the rape charge.

[midas]

Midas you are pleading a lost case! what part of "he climbed on her when she was sleeping and because she was sleeping she did not realise that he climbed on her" is it you don't understand?

no no Naam there is much much more to it than that...........

"

Geoffrey Robertson QC told the extradition hearing, at Belmarsh magistrate”s court in south London, that any resistance had been “unarticulated” on the part of Miss A, who has accused the Assange of ripping off her clothes, snapping a necklace, pinning her down and trying to force himself on her without wearing a condom.

“In so far as Mr Assange held her arms and there was a forceful spreading of her legs, there”s no allegation that this was without her consent,” the Guardian quoted him as saying. “Sexual encounters have their ups and downs, their ebbs and flows. What may be unwanted one moment can with further empathy become desired. These complex human interactions are not criminal in this country.”

The argument that Assange used the weight of his body to pin her down “describes what is usually termed the missionary position,” he added.(ANI)"

Edited December 27, 2011 by midas

[midas]

Considering the discussion in this thread, it would seem that an investigation and possibly a court hearing is needed to resolve it.

they could have carried out an investigation during the five weeks that Assange stayed on in Sweden and tried persistently

to meet with the prosecutors? but they simply refused to meet with him

you have to agree it's usually the prosecutors which hound the accused and you don't get many cases where it's

the other way around?

Edited December 27, 2011 by midas

[Ulysses G.]

Midas you are pleading a lost case! what part of "he climbed on her when she was sleeping and because she was sleeping she did not realise that he climbed on her" is it you don't understand?

What part of he climbed on her when she was sleeping WTHOUT USING A CONDOM is it that you do not understand?

[Ulysses G.]

Considering the discussion in this thread, it would seem that an investigation and possibly a court hearing is needed to resolve it.

they could have carried out an investigation during the five weeks that Assange stayed on in Sweden and tried persistently

to meet with the prosecutors? but they simply refused to meet with him

you have to agree it's usually the prosecutors which hound the accused and you don't get many cases where it's

the other way around?

Not when the prosecutors have temporarily dropped the case. They reinstated it later when more evidence surfaced and Assange refused to return to Sweden to answer questions.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

Considering the discussion in this thread, it would seem that an investigation and possibly a court hearing is needed to resolve it.

they could have carried out an investigation during the five weeks that Assange stayed on in Sweden and tried persistently

to meet with the prosecutors? but they simply refused to meet with him

you have to agree it's usually the prosecutors which hound the accused and you don't get many cases where it's

the other way around?

Not when the prosecutors have temporarily dropped the case. They reinstated it later when more evidence surfaced and Assange refused to return to Sweden to answer questions.

this statement doesn't sound very much like " temporarily dropping the case "...........

“ Sweden's chief prosecutor refused to lay charges against him. He then left Sweden “

and what is this " new evidence " you refer to?oh you mean the broken condom that doesn't have any DNA evidence on it whatsoever?

And bearing in mind he offered to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy in London ( which being an embassy is technically Swedish soil anyway ),

what difference could it have made for them to have carried out their interview there ?