Assange will be extradited. European Arrest Warrant in the Dock

[andyandy]

Says it all in the title. Seeing as we already have about 3 million wikileaks threads how about one on the European arrest warrants. Good idea to speed up extradition or an abuse of national legal frameworks....?

Discuss

EAWs were introduced in 2003 with the aim of making extradition swifter and easier between European member states. But campaigners have raised concerns about the application of the warrants, arguing that they are sometimes applied before a case is ready to prosecute, and that while they were originally intended to counter terrorism, their use has greatly increased. Seven hundred people were extradited from the UK under the system last year.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op...ge-extradition-sweden-verdict&cat=top-stories

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US if he is Sweden as opposed to the UK?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US if he is Sweden as opposed to the UK?

That is a question that to my knowledge has not been satisfactorily answered.

Unless this article is misleading us as to the legalities it would actually be harder since both the UK and Sweden would have to approve such a second extradition, as opposed to just the UK having to approve extradition from within the UK.

 

[plumjam]

Is there any truth to the rumour that Miss A and Miss B are the two chicks out of ABBA?

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, because then they'd both be Miss A.

Dave

 

[andyandy]

Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US if he is Sweden as opposed to the UK?

I don't know if he is - I think that was just a defence line.....if anything I would have thought the uk would be more willing to extradite to the us than Sweden....

 

[WildCat]

Is he still claiming the US is going to put him in Gitmo?

 

[andyandy]

Is he still claiming the US is going to put him in Gitmo?

He's claiming you're going to kill him....

 

[Dragon]

Can I suggest that people read the actual judgement? It's not that long as these things go (a full transcript will be available separately).

It seems that Assange's Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig deliberately tried to mislead the court. Judges don't like that.

From the judgement -

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview
his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving
evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).
However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as
significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr
Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I
do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a
week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a
very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in
fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts
then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

 

[commandlinegamer]

According to David Allen Green, aka Jack of Kent, if he goes to Sweden he can only be then extradited to US with consent of both UK and Sweden.

http://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is he still claiming the US is going to put him in Gitmo?

Yes. And his gullable followers believe it.

 

[Toontown]

Yes. And his gullable followers believe it.

He has followers?

Hmm. Reminds me of that ice age cartoon movie in which that whatchamacallit attracted a horde of followers who then tried to sacrifice the whatchamacallit to the volcano god, as fodder for their political propaganda mill. All with the best of intentions, of course.

A guy needs to be dubious of followers. Real dubious.

 

[geni]

Says it all in the title. Seeing as we already have about 3 million wikileaks threads how about one on the European arrest warrants. Good idea to speed up extradition or an abuse of national legal frameworks....?

Discuss

In the case of swenden not really an issue. It's countries like greece where the justic system really is that much worse that are the real problem.

 

[geni]

Is he still claiming the US is going to put him in Gitmo?

Not in this round. From what I understand the case was mostly contested on technicalities.

 

[geni]

He has followers?

You don't have the kind of impact on world events that Assange has had without picking up a few followers.

A guy needs to be dubious of followers. Real dubious.

When you've got the likes of Israel Shamir on your teal followers are a secondary problem.

 

[Thunder]

but...if he is arrested...won't he release his big massive super-scary secret bomb thing?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Can I suggest that people read the actual judgement? It's not that long as these things go (a full transcript will be available separately).

It seems that Assange's Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig deliberately tried to mislead the court. Judges don't like that.

From the judgement -

There still seems to be some dispute about willingness to give off-shore interviews:

Julian Assange: There has been so many abuses by the Swedish government, including the ongoing refusal to provide me any material in English, and the prosecutor Ny lying about interview agreements, that I do not have confidence in the Swedish justice system. Let us not forget that I already gave an interview, stayed in Sweden voluntarily for a month, and the warrant for my arrest was dropped.

Perhaps if his legal team had laid off the claims about US government assassination and concentrated on actually having a formal charge being issued before extradition, they may have got further. Then again the judge may be acting under the orders of the establishment and not have any option about his decision.

It is certainly the most extraordinary case I have ever seen, I can't see, if Assange had not annoyed powerful interests, that such minor offences (if offences they were and he wasn't deliberately targeted) would have resulted in such herculean judicial efforts.

Unter Commonwealth and American legal systems you are not required to answer questions (European systems are different I think), therefore the requirement that enough evidence be available to justify a charge being filed with the court and a hearing date set, seems absolutely reasonable before granting extradition.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Already posted about the summary here. Interesting read, I have to wonder if Assange's apeal is based on having a useless lawyer, having your first two witnesses utterly shred every pillar of your case under cross can't be good for a defence.

Perhaps if his legal team had laid off the claims about US government assassination and concentrated on actually having a formal charge being issued before extradition, they may have got further. Then again the judge may be acting under the orders of the establishment and not have any option about his decision.

Really? Have you actually bothered to read the judge's summary and evidence? Thought not.

It is certainly the most extraordinary case I have ever seen, I can't see, if Assange had not annoyed powerful interests, that such minor offences (if offences they were and he wasn't deliberately targeted) would have resulted in such herculean judicial efforts.

I'd suggest that you stop getting your news off of blog sites. There have been some things that are unusual to most western legal systems, like the right of the victim to appeal the a decision not to go head with an investigation. Otherwise most of the weird stuff out there is, well, out there. I have found it very hard to pick through the dross and find good details on what happened, but it can be done if you are careful. Unfortunately often one blogger states something as fact and it speeds about the blogsphere faster than light and everyone is repeating it, for example the timeline that has Assange leaving Sweden for the UK in early November "with the permission of the courts". He actually left on the 27th of Nov and the permission was that his lawyer was told that he could leave for his work because he hadn't been charged, but was expected to return. Also turns out that he wasn't contactable by his lawyer for at least a week before he left meaning he didn't get told that he was wanted for an interogation the day after he decided to leave on.

Unter Commonwealth and American legal systems you are not required to answer questions (European systems are different I think), therefore the requirement that enough evidence be available to justify a charge being filed with the court and a hearing date set, seems absolutely reasonable before granting extradition.

Under western legal systems the police can still interrogate a suspect. Ny initially wanted Assange so that she could get his side of the story and find out what had happened based on what he said and what the women had told her. Ny has stated that based on the evidence that she currently has, she would indite him, but depending on what he has to say, that may change.

 

[Damien Evans]

Why is he more likely to be extradited to the US if he is Sweden as opposed to the UK?

What on earth could he be extradited to the USA for anyway?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'd suggest that you stop getting your news off of blog sites. There have been some things that are unusual to most western legal systems, like the right of the victim to appeal the a decision not to go head with an investigation. Otherwise most of the weird stuff out there is, well, out there. I have found it very hard to pick through the dross and find good details on what happened, but it can be done if you are careful. Unfortunately often one blogger states something as fact and it speeds about the blogsphere faster than light and everyone is repeating it, for example the timeline that has Assange leaving Sweden for the UK in ea

While Phantomwolf and I have substantial differences of opinion about how to view this case he is spot on as far as this goes: All sorts of nonsense is being spread about this case, a lot of it seemingly originating with Assange or his supporters, and taking anything you find on a blog at face value is a bad idea in this particular case (even more so than usual).