Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[GentlemanJim]

I find it quite amazing that people on here are call Assange a cheap thief when all they/he have done is to publish papers which are an accurate record of what people have said. I thought Superman fought for truth justice and the American way. Where does the truth come in to it? The only reason that the US government are so angry is that the documents revealed have exposed many of them as a bunch of scheming liars. The truth, it appears, does indeed hurt. Nothing of what was published endangered the lives of US troops, that is just sensationalist crap designed to have the US public demanding a lynching. The sad thing is, they will probably get one.

[midas]

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.

Well you nor I or anyone else other than the US authorities know whether an indictment has already been prepared

and sealed ? As the article I postedstates, the grand jury sits in secret and I'm sure secrecy would be even more important in this instance.

And when I hear about these special “supplements “ to extradition treaties such as in the case of Sweden, I wonder how many other countries have similar arrangements and if so which ones they are ?

If the indictment has already been prepared then paragraph ( b )article 6 of the supplement would apply

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:

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 of the

Contracting States.

And if anyone thinks in this instance he would ever be returned to the " requested State " then that person must also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden

Edited November 3, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

I find it quite amazing that people on here are call Assange a cheap thief when all they/he have done is to publish papers which are an accurate record of what people have said. I thought Superman fought for truth justice and the American way. Where does the truth come in to it? The only reason that the US government are so angry is that the documents revealed have exposed many of them as a bunch of scheming liars. The truth, it appears, does indeed hurt. Nothing of what was published endangered the lives of US troops, that is just sensationalist crap designed to have the US public demanding a lynching. The sad thing is, they will probably get one.

Assange = Superman?

[chuckd]

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.

Well you nor I or anyone else other than the US authorities know whether an indictment has already been prepared

and sealed ? As the article I postedstates, the grand jury sits in secret and I'm sure secrecy would be even more important in this instance.

And when I hear about these special “supplements “ to extradition treaties such as in the case of Sweden, I wonder how many other countries have similar arrangements and if so which ones they are ?

If the indictment has already been prepared then paragraph ( b )article 6 of the supplement would apply

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:

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 of the

Contracting States.

And if anyone thinks in this instance he would ever be returned to the " requested State " then that person must also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden

Sorry, Midas, but you are missing the point. The first sentence of Article VI of the Supplement clearly states..."If the extradition request is granted..."

This is a decision to be made by the Swedish government IF and WHEN an extradition request is made by the US.

As far as Manning is concerned, he is suspected of espionage and treason and is being held for military legal action. Those types usually don't get rooms at the Holiday Inn to serve their time in. He is being held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

My reason for pointing out your link was nearly one year old is to show that nothing has been announced by the US government in that period of time in the matter. If, as you state, the government is waiting for Manning to turn state's evidence against Assange, then you must have some insider information that most of us are not privy to.

Maybe Manning is Lois Lane to Assange's Superman.

[ringo77]

I find it quite amazing that people on here are call Assange a cheap thief when all they/he have done is to publish papers which are an accurate record of what people have said. I thought Superman fought for truth justice and the American way. Where does the truth come in to it? The only reason that the US government are so angry is that the documents revealed have exposed many of them as a bunch of scheming liars. The truth, it appears, does indeed hurt. Nothing of what was published endangered the lives of US troops, that is just sensationalist crap designed to have the US public demanding a lynching. The sad thing is, they will probably get one.

Assange = Superman?

No. Superman was a fictional comic book character who always wanted to uphold the virtues of Truth, Justice and the American way.

Superman was a good guy. Assange is more like the Joker.

[Scott]

A number of off-topic posts, inflammatory posts and personal remarks have been removed as well as replies to them.

The topic is about Assange and his extradition to Sweden. This is a developing story and I am reasonably sure there will be further updates for opinions which are outside the scope of this topic.

[midas]

Sorry, Midas, but you are missing the point. The first sentence of Article VI of the Supplement clearly states..."If the extradition request is granted..."

This is a decision to be made by the Swedish government IF and WHEN an extradition request is made by the US.

here is Attorney McNabb again in an interview earlier this year in which he states quite frankly the decision

on what happens to Assange could be based on politics ! funny I thought it was meant to be based on

Justice and the rule of law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TlyAkKyyX8

[midas]

Now this is an interesting set of facts and I haven't heard it mentioned much before:-

Karl Rove key player in Swedish WikiLeaks probe

" Karl Rove’s help for Sweden as it and the Obama administration investigate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could be the latest example of the adage, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.

As sex and spy probes move forward, word is getting out about how Rove, the former Bush White House strategist, has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredric Reinfeldt for the past two years.

“This all has Karl’s signature,” a reliable political source told me last month in encouraging our Justice Integrity Project to investigate Rove’s Swedish connections as an important factor in the WikiLeaks probes. “”

http://www.swedishwire.com/opinion/8165-karl-rove-key-player-in-swedish-wikileaks-probe

Edited November 3, 2011 by midas

[chuckd]

Now this is an interesting set of facts and I haven't heard it mentioned much before:-

Karl Rove key player in Swedish WikiLeaks probe

" Karl Rove’s help for Sweden as it and the Obama administration investigate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could be the latest example of the adage, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.

As sex and spy probes move forward, word is getting out about how Rove, the former Bush White House strategist, has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredric Reinfeldt for the past two years.

“This all has Karl’s signature,” a reliable political source told me last month in encouraging our Justice Integrity Project to investigate Rove’s Swedish connections as an important factor in the WikiLeaks probes. “”

http://www.swedishwire.com/opinion/8165-karl-rove-key-player-in-swedish-wikileaks-probe

Following is the entire paragraph, of which you only quoted the first sentence. Perhaps the source of this astounding information has an agenda?

The entire article is an opinion piece that does not disclose one provable fact about Rove's role in any conspiracy. It is full of "what if's", "perhaps" and "maybe's", concluding with nothing and fueled by anonymous, yet reliable, political sources.

Here is the entire paragraph, with the closing sentence the one of interest.

_____________________________________________________

“This all has Karl’s signature,” a reliable political source told me last month in encouraging our Justice Integrity Project to investigate Rove’s Swedish connections as an important factor in the WikiLeaks probes. “He [Rove] must be very happy. He’s right back in the middle of it. He’s making himself valuable to his new friends, seeing the U.S. government doing just what he’d like ─ and screwing his opponents big-time.”

_____________________________________________________

[Hermeric]

Fair trial in Sweden ? Sweden? The Saudi Arabia of feminism? The statement migh show some excess and lack of diplomaticy but maybe be there is some truth in it?

Wikipedia: "According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries"

[chuckd]

Sorry, Midas, but you are missing the point. The first sentence of Article VI of the Supplement clearly states..."If the extradition request is granted..."

This is a decision to be made by the Swedish government IF and WHEN an extradition request is made by the US.

here is Attorney McNabb again in an interview earlier this year in which he states quite frankly the decision

on what happens to Assange could be based on politics ! funny I thought it was meant to be based on

Justice and the rule of law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TlyAkKyyX8

Hmmmm, now let me see. A defense lawyer being interviewed on Russian television stating politics might be in play between two countries in an extradition hearing. Imagine that.

Now, think of the Swiss refusal to extradite Roman Polanski who was a convicted and self admitted paedophile.

Nothing is certain when politics are involved.

[Ulysses G.]

Hmmmm, now let me see. A defense lawyer being interviewed on Russian television stating politics might be in play between two countries in an extradition hearing. Imagine that.

Imagine that indeed!

[geriatrickid]

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.

Nonsensical hyperbole. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of handing over the documents to wikileaks that are alleged to have resulted in the harm to the people named in the documents does not face the death penalty. If the alleged thief is not facing execution, why then would the alleged "fence" face execution? Mr. Assange has not been charged in the USA, nor has an extradition request been made by the USA. Your comments take away from the fact that Mr. Assange is facing some serious charges in Sweden.

Looking at some of the comments, there are some people that don't consider Mr. Assange's conduct in his pursuit of ejaculatory bliss to have crossed the line. Unfortunately, for them, what matters are the applicable laws in Sweden that were enacted by the Swedish people to address these types of allegation. Instead of obsessing over the USA, go and look at the Swedish laws and the reasoning why the Swedish population have those laws in place,. Mr. Assange's status as a self appointed avenger did not shield him from the laws and he will have his day in court.

Not mentioned is the fact that Mr. Assange has done everything possible to avoid facing the charges in a Swedish court. Initially he would not co-operate with the Swedish investigators. Now some say, why didn't the Swedish investigators go to the UK. Well, if the accused wouldn't co-operate initially and is not legally obliged to answer the questions in the UK, why would the Swedish investigators wish to accomodate Mr. Assange's demands? Simply put, he gambled that he could avoid the questioning by hiding out in the UK. He gambled wrong. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Sweden.

And for those blaming an international conspiracy for the loss of wikisupport, I suggest you read some of the former employee and colleague comments. I think many of the former contributors read them and acted accordingly. One of Mr. Assange's former colleagues has opened a similar site and suprisingly enough, they are able to attract funding. I think the reason funding stopped in large part is that many people realized that Mr. Assange's actions were not as noble as he held them out to be. The man's an angry person with a big chip on his shoulder.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geriatrickid

[midas]

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.

Nonsensical hyperbole. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of handing over the documents to wikileaks that are alleged to have resulted in the harm to the people named in the documents does not face the death penalty. If the alleged thief is not facing execution, why then would the alleged "fence" face execution? Mr. Assange has not been charged in the USA, nor has an extradition request been made by the USA. Your comments take away from the fact that Mr. Assange is facing some serious charges in Sweden.

Looking at some of the comments, there are some people that don't consider Mr. Assange's conduct in his pursuit of ejaculatory bliss to have crossed the line. Unfortunately, for them, what matters are the applicable laws in Sweden that were enacted by the Swedish people to address these types of allegation. Instead of obsessing over the USA, go and look at the Swedish laws and the reasoning why the Swedish population have those laws in place,. Mr. Assange's status as a self appointed avenger did not shield him from the laws and he will have his day in court.

Not mentioned is the fact that Mr. Assange has done everything possible to avoid facing the charges in a Swedish court. Initially he would not co-operate with the Swedish investigators. Now some say, why didn't the Swedish investigators go to the UK. Well, if the accused wouldn't co-operate initially and is not legally obliged to answer the questions in the UK, why would the Swedish investigators wish to accomodate Mr. Assange's demands? Simply put, he gambled that he could avoid the questioning by hiding out in the UK. He gambled wrong. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Sweden.

And for those blaming an international conspiracy for the loss of wikisupport, I suggest you read some of the former employee and colleague comments. I think many of the former contributors read them and acted accordingly. One of Mr. Assange's former colleagues has opened a similar site and suprisingly enough, they are able to attract funding. I think the reason funding stopped in large part is that many people realized that Mr. Assange's actions were not as noble as he held them out to be. The man's an angry person with a big chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps he avoided going to Sweden because of warnings voiced by the likes of Brita Sundberg-Weitman a former Swedish appeal court judge herself that Sweden's chief prosecutor Marianne Ny ( the person who is seeking his extradition ) "has a rather biased view against men". "I can't understand her attitude here. It looks malicious," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/07/julian-assange-prosecutor

[Wallaby]

Nonsensical hyperbole. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of handing over the documents to wikileaks that are alleged to have resulted in the harm to the people named in the documents does not face the death penalty. If the alleged thief is not facing execution, why then would the alleged "fence" face execution? Mr. Assange has not been charged in the USA, nor has an extradition request been made by the USA. Your comments take away from the fact that Mr. Assange is facing some serious charges in Sweden.

Looking at some of the comments, there are some people that don't consider Mr. Assange's conduct in his pursuit of ejaculatory bliss to have crossed the line. Unfortunately, for them, what matters are the applicable laws in Sweden that were enacted by the Swedish people to address these types of allegation. Instead of obsessing over the USA, go and look at the Swedish laws and the reasoning why the Swedish population have those laws in place,. Mr. Assange's status as a self appointed avenger did not shield him from the laws and he will have his day in court.

Not mentioned is the fact that Mr. Assange has done everything possible to avoid facing the charges in a Swedish court. Initially he would not co-operate with the Swedish investigators. Now some say, why didn't the Swedish investigators go to the UK. Well, if the accused wouldn't co-operate initially and is not legally obliged to answer the questions in the UK, why would the Swedish investigators wish to accomodate Mr. Assange's demands? Simply put, he gambled that he could avoid the questioning by hiding out in the UK. He gambled wrong. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Sweden.

And for those blaming an international conspiracy for the loss of wikisupport, I suggest you read some of the former employee and colleague comments. I think many of the former contributors read them and acted accordingly. One of Mr. Assange's former colleagues has opened a similar site and suprisingly enough, they are able to attract funding. I think the reason funding stopped in large part is that many people realized that Mr. Assange's actions were not as noble as he held them out to be. The man's an angry person with a big chip on his shoulder.

A couple of points on your post and I'll try and answer in the order you put them.

Bradley Manning is not facing execution, yet, because he hasn't been charged with anything. When he is charged he could well be executed, and so could Assange if the US govt gets their hands on him. I would think this is hypocritical considering how GWB stepped in to free Scooter Libby who outed a CIA agent and put her life at risk.

Assange could well have been charged in the US, no one knows because the hearings can be done in secret.

Assange has NOT done anything to avoid charges. He simply has not been charged with anything, he is being extradited for questioning. How can one avoid something that hasn't happened? Why hasn't Sweden charged him yet?

You ask why authorities would accomodate him by going to the UK to question him? They were in the UK for the extradition, why not question him whilst there, it's not like they will be making a special trip for it. They were there, why not question him there. What difference does it make to them where he is questioned. Assange also made himself available to be interviewed by video so the authorities didn't have to go to the UK. In any event, if Assange does not wish to be interviewed then what difference does it make if he is in the UK or Sweden? My own thoughts are that they want him in Sweden because they can hold him in jail without bail, indefinitely.

You put credence in what a former employee says, a former employee who has a real dislike for Assange and has a competitor site. Do you really need anyone to explain why he would have a motive to discredit Assange? My own view is that funds have run dry because the avenues for payment have been stopped, by pressure from the US govt (I believe).

I'm wondering when the US will lay charges against the New York Times for publishing the leaks.

[flying]

Assange could well have been charged in the US, no one knows because the hearings can be done in secret.

I'm wondering when the US will lay charges against the New York Times for publishing the leaks.

Yes habeas corpus is dead under the Patriot Act<sic> so when one is to be charged

it need not be done in public...nor does it need to be done at all.

They can hold you till the end of time uncharged

Another Liberty crushed by fear mongering

As for the New York Times?

Useful idiots puppets strings are never cut.

What has Assange really done to the US?

Released videos like the Apache gunning down Reuters cameramen?

These things should have been released by the criminals who created them.

Instead outrage is directed to those who released them for the public to see.

They have it 180 degrees backwards as usual. We The People foot the bill & are entitled

to know exactly what is being done in our names with our tax dollars.

No secrets were revealed that threatened our National Security.

As for Bradley Manning?

No different than Daniel Ellsberg when he released the Pentagon Papers .

A then top secret report of of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. He was later awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006

All he was guilty of was embarrassing a government.

Same story here.

Edited November 3, 2011 by flying

[Wallaby]

Nonsensical hyperbole. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of handing over the documents to wikileaks that are alleged to have resulted in the harm to the people named in the documents does not face the death penalty. If the alleged thief is not facing execution, why then would the alleged "fence" face execution? Mr. Assange has not been charged in the USA, nor has an extradition request been made by the USA. Your comments take away from the fact that Mr. Assange is facing some serious charges in Sweden.

Looking at some of the comments, there are some people that don't consider Mr. Assange's conduct in his pursuit of ejaculatory bliss to have crossed the line. Unfortunately, for them, what matters are the applicable laws in Sweden that were enacted by the Swedish people to address these types of allegation. Instead of obsessing over the USA, go and look at the Swedish laws and the reasoning why the Swedish population have those laws in place,. Mr. Assange's status as a self appointed avenger did not shield him from the laws and he will have his day in court.

Not mentioned is the fact that Mr. Assange has done everything possible to avoid facing the charges in a Swedish court. Initially he would not co-operate with the Swedish investigators. Now some say, why didn't the Swedish investigators go to the UK. Well, if the accused wouldn't co-operate initially and is not legally obliged to answer the questions in the UK, why would the Swedish investigators wish to accomodate Mr. Assange's demands? Simply put, he gambled that he could avoid the questioning by hiding out in the UK. He gambled wrong. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Sweden.

And for those blaming an international conspiracy for the loss of wikisupport, I suggest you read some of the former employee and colleague comments. I think many of the former contributors read them and acted accordingly. One of Mr. Assange's former colleagues has opened a similar site and suprisingly enough, they are able to attract funding. I think the reason funding stopped in large part is that many people realized that Mr. Assange's actions were not as noble as he held them out to be. The man's an angry person with a big chip on his shoulder.

Forgot to add...

Sweden is not accomodating to Assange to go to the UK to question him. It is up to Assange whether he wants to be questioned, he can sit there silent. It is Assange that is being accommodating to Sweden to say he would answer by video. They had their chance to accept, if I were Assange I'd not say a word now.

If Assange does wish to say anything then the court is the proper place to say it. But that is entirely up to him whether he wants to say anything there either.

[Credo]

Of course, it could also be a simple case of Assange having broken the law in Sweden and not wanting to face the consequences.

[chuckd]

A couple of points on your post and I'll try and answer in the order you put them.

Bradley Manning is not facing execution, yet, because he hasn't been charged with anything. When he is charged he could well be executed, and so could Assange if the US govt gets their hands on him. I would think this is hypocritical considering how GWB stepped in to free Scooter Libby who outed a CIA agent and put her life at risk.

A couple of corrections about your Scooter Libby statement.

1. Libby did not out Valerie Plame as a CIA officer and was not charged with this. The outing was done by State Department employee Richard Armitage to columnist Robert Novak. Armitage was not charged for this action.

2. Plame was not assigned as anything other than an Operations Officer and I have found no reference to her life being under any threat as a result of the outing. The KGB probably knew more about her than the CIA did anyway.

3. Scooter Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to a federal officer and perjury and was convicted of some of the charges. He was fined $250,000, sentenced to 30 months prison time and two years probation. Bush, after some four months of the prison sentence, reduced it to time served but left the probation and fine in place.

Again, Libby was NOT charged with outing Valerie Plame.

PS: Another comment about Assange is in order here.

All he had to do was keep his zipper up while he was in Sweden and all this would not have happened. He is NOT a victim in this sordid mess.

[midas]

Of course, it could also be a simple case of Assange having broken the law in Sweden and not wanting to face the consequences.

I would like to ask has anyone from the Swedish authorities ever received a request by any party to provide an unequivocal assurance that if Assange had volunteered to go to Sweden, he would receive a cast-iron agreement from the Swedish Government they would never hand him over or transfer him to another party under any circumstances.

What would be wrong with Sweden providing this assurance if their genuine bona fide intention is only to prosecute him for this case and nothing beyond that?

Edited November 4, 2011 by midas

[Credo]

There is no 'special' relationship between the US and Sweden. If the US wanted to get custody of Assange, then they would have a better chance with the British than with the Swedes.

As far as making any type of agreement not to extradite him, I doubt any reasonable gov't would do that. Negotiating with the alleged criminal?

[midas]

There is no 'special' relationship between the US and Sweden. If the US wanted to get custody of Assange, then they would have a better chance with the British than with the Swedes.

As far as making any type of agreement not to extradite him, I doubt any reasonable gov't would do that. Negotiating with the alleged criminal?

That is incorrect because UK does not have anything like an article 6 to the extradition supplement between Sweden and USA.

and what is wrong with negotiating with someone if there is the basic presumption of innocence until proven guilty

[koheesti]

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?

If I read this right you are saying that if a woman has consensual sex with a man on several occasions then the man has the right to take sex from her at any time in the future?

[Credo]

Sweden is one of the last countries that is going to be subject to any arm twisting from the US.

The argument is that the actions against him are politically motivated. If that is the case, then returning him to Sweden would not be in the US interest. They simply do not have a history of kow-towing to US political interference.

[flying]

If I read this right you are saying that if a woman has consensual sex with a man on several occasions then the man has the right to take sex from her at any time in the future?

I am not sure that question fits this scenario...

From the OP

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.

Would be something like saying your in a relationship? Obviously as your sleeping together in the same bed...

You have had sex on numerous occasions

This time is rape?

Yes the condom issue could be a valid reason to say no thanks & pull away...Yet she did not?

So which is it? Rape or something else?

Edited November 4, 2011 by flying

[midas]

Sweden is one of the last countries that is going to be subject to any arm twisting from the US.

The argument is that the actions against him are politically motivated. If that is the case, then returning him to Sweden would not be in the US interest. They simply do not have a history of kow-towing to US political interference.

that is only your opinion and your statement is not factual. You are of course entitled to that opinion

but after learning that Karl Rove is very close to the Swedish government and that

many believe he has been involved in this issue ( secretively of course ), my opinion is quite opposite to yours

Edited November 4, 2011 by midas

[Wallaby]

Of course, it could also be a simple case of Assange having broken the law in Sweden and not wanting to face the consequences.

Consequences of what? He hasn't been charged with anything. Sweden can charge him whilst he's in the UK but they haven't.

[Wallaby]

A couple of corrections about your Scooter Libby statement.

1. Libby did not out Valerie Plame as a CIA officer and was not charged with this. The outing was done by State Department employee Richard Armitage to columnist Robert Novak. Armitage was not charged for this action.

2. Plame was not assigned as anything other than an Operations Officer and I have found no reference to her life being under any threat as a result of the outing. The KGB probably knew more about her than the CIA did anyway.

3. Scooter Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to a federal officer and perjury and was convicted of some of the charges. He was fined $250,000, sentenced to 30 months prison time and two years probation. Bush, after some four months of the prison sentence, reduced it to time served but left the probation and fine in place.

Again, Libby was NOT charged with outing Valerie Plame.

PS: Another comment about Assange is in order here.

All he had to do was keep his zipper up while he was in Sweden and all this would not have happened. He is NOT a victim in this sordid mess.

I stand corrected. My bad, apologies.

[chuckd]

Sweden is one of the last countries that is going to be subject to any arm twisting from the US.

The argument is that the actions against him are politically motivated. If that is the case, then returning him to Sweden would not be in the US interest. They simply do not have a history of kow-towing to US political interference.

that is only your opinion and your statement is not factual. You are of course entitled to that opinion

but after learning that Karl Rove is very close to the Swedish government and that

many believe he has been involved in this issue ( secretively of course ), my opinion is quite opposite to yours

"Many believe"??? Isn't that called a straw man argument?

Blame everybody but the guy that had unprotected sex in Sweden.

[Ulysses G.]

Blame everybody but the guy that had unprotected sex in Sweden.

The Judge might not think the same way.