9 ms·

Assange loses extradition appeal

121 points by morsch 14y ago

morsch 14y ago
The Guardian has some live coverage, but I figured the Beeb is a more authoritative source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assange-extradition-verdict-live-coverage http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assa...
- metatronscube 14y ago
  If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day. Thanks for the link.
bobsy 14y ago
I have no opinion on what is happening to Assange. I don't know enough facts. I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court? Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.
- gouranga 14y ago
  They are the ones that actually went through the legal system. It doesn't always happen. Look at all the cases of extraordinary rendition over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
- rickmb 14y ago
  > I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right? And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough. You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  > I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts. You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker. Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- aaronsw 14y ago
  "Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory." http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf
  - gouranga 14y ago
    They don't need to charge him. They can just extradite to USA for questioning at which point on USA soil they can do what they want with him even if it's not questioning.
- objclxt 14y ago
  I've posted about this before in previous HN stories, but it's actually not that dodgy: because EU borders are open (you can move between EU countries freely) it's important to have a process for arrest warrants that are valid throughout the EU. That's what's happened here: Sweden wants to question Assange, with a view to potentially bringing charges. They have issued an arrest warrant to arrest him - his guilt is irrelevant. As many people have mentioned, the UK actually has a strong record of extraditing people to the US: if anything, Sweden is less co-operative (for example, Roman Polanski will never set foot in the UK for fear of being arrested and extradited, but he was happy to enter Sweden).
  - aaronsw 14y ago
    Actually, Polanski was arrested and released in Switzerland, not Sweden.
    - objclxt 14y ago
      You're totally right - I've corrected that. My apologies.
    - 14y ago
chris123 14y ago
One step closer to Gitmo, one step closer to 1984 on steroids.
jgrahamc 14y ago
This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of. He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- morsch 14y ago
  I think this is pretty much the average position on HN.
- mtgx 14y ago
  I'm fine with it, as long as he's not extradited to US, and the Court and prosecution doesn't turn out to be very corrupt there.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  "Technical grounds", in this case, means "the extradition request was never written by anyone the UK considers to be a valid authority". In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court based its ruling on treaties that neither party had argued over or been informed would be germane. Thus, there'll likely be another appeal before anything happens. The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window. People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.
- sneak 14y ago
  Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans. The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/... As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.
token78 14y ago
My sense is that while people across the world are polarised in their opinions of Assange himself, there's still a lot of disquiet about the question of his (potential/likely?) deportation to the U.S. only to face a Grand Jury, as opposed to due process, the rule of law, and a properly constituted court. As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.

121 points by morsch 14y ago

The Guardian has some live coverage, but I figured the Beeb is a more authoritative source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assange-extradition-verdict-live-coverage http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assa...

metatronscube 14y ago
If you mean social position/power as well as being state sanctioned and run then yes, the mighty BBC is more authoritative but if you are looking for the accurate up to date unbiased details then I would choose the Guardian any day. Thanks for the link.

bobsy 14y ago

I have no opinion on what is happening to Assange. I don't know enough facts. I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. I find it somewhat ridiculous the number of appeals you can have. Assange lost on the original verdict, then the appeal. He can then appeal again. I assume if that fails he can appeal to some EU court? Its like the deportation of Abu Qatada. One has so many appeals at their disposal I am surprised anyone can get deported nowadays.

gouranga 14y ago
They are the ones that actually went through the legal system. It doesn't always happen. Look at all the cases of extraordinary rendition over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
rickmb 14y ago
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. Because there is absolutely no recent history of the US conspiring with friendly governments to circumvent the rule of law and illegally transporting, imprisoning and even torturing people that were considered a threat to the US, right? And surely there is also absolutely no documented recent history of the US pressuring European authorities, especially the Swedish, to prosecuted people for crimes against US interests... cough piracy cough. You're right about one thing, if the US were behind it, it would be no "big conspiracy". It would be business as usual.
retrogradeorbit 14y ago
> I find it unlikely that there is a big conspiracy involving America though. You find it unlikely because you are clearly ignorant of the facts. You really need to widen your reading with an opinion like that. I suggest books like "Classified Woman" by Sibel Edmonds, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll or "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker. Note I'm not saying there IS an American conspiracy. I'm saying the fact that you find it UNLIKELY that there is a conspiracy is naive and ignorant of how American power actually works (as opposed to how it advertises it works).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

aaronsw 14y ago
"Swedish law requires a person to be physically present before charges can be laid, so this can only happen once Mr Assange is on Swedish territory." http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf
- gouranga 14y ago
  They don't need to charge him. They can just extradite to USA for questioning at which point on USA soil they can do what they want with him even if it's not questioning.
objclxt 14y ago
I've posted about this before in previous HN stories, but it's actually not that dodgy: because EU borders are open (you can move between EU countries freely) it's important to have a process for arrest warrants that are valid throughout the EU. That's what's happened here: Sweden wants to question Assange, with a view to potentially bringing charges. They have issued an arrest warrant to arrest him - his guilt is irrelevant. As many people have mentioned, the UK actually has a strong record of extraditing people to the US: if anything, Sweden is less co-operative (for example, Roman Polanski will never set foot in the UK for fear of being arrested and extradited, but he was happy to enter Sweden).
- aaronsw 14y ago
  Actually, Polanski was arrested and released in Switzerland, not Sweden.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    You're totally right - I've corrected that. My apologies.
  - 14y ago

chris123 14y ago

One step closer to Gitmo, one step closer to 1984 on steroids.

jgrahamc 14y ago

This is probably an unpopular opinion for some of the HN population, but I wish that Assange would be extradited to Sweden. He's appealing extradition on technical grounds, and it's about time he went to Sweden and faced the judicial system there. All of the current proceedings are a sideshow which have nothing to do with the things he'd accused of. He's accused of sexual offenses in Sweden, we have a working system of arrest warrants across Europe. Let's get on with it.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
morsch 14y ago
I think this is pretty much the average position on HN.
mtgx 14y ago
I'm fine with it, as long as he's not extradited to US, and the Court and prosecution doesn't turn out to be very corrupt there.
redthrowaway 14y ago
"Technical grounds", in this case, means "the extradition request was never written by anyone the UK considers to be a valid authority". In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court based its ruling on treaties that neither party had argued over or been informed would be germane. Thus, there'll likely be another appeal before anything happens. The law is finicky for a reason: it spells out exactly what rights the respective parties have. Were it not so explicit, and were the courts not so strict in enforcing it, the validity of the entire system would be called into question and judicial impartiality / defendants' rights would fly out the window. People throw a tizzy when a murderer gets let off because they weren't read their rights, but if that didn't happen no one would have their rights read. It's just how the system keeps police and prosecutors in line. It's necessary.
sneak 14y ago
Some people are claiming (based on leaked Stratfor emails) that there is a sealed indictment for him in the US, and that the moment he goes to Sweden he will be whisked away for a secret trial at the hands of the Americans. The issue is not so much the Swedish charges, but the difference in attitudes about extradition to the US between Sweden and the UK. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/... As there is no rule of law in America (secret trials, secret laws, solitary confinement without trial, etc etc etc), this is the worst possible outcome.

token78 14y ago

My sense is that while people across the world are polarised in their opinions of Assange himself, there's still a lot of disquiet about the question of his (potential/likely?) deportation to the U.S. only to face a Grand Jury, as opposed to due process, the rule of law, and a properly constituted court. As a non-American, it makes me wonder whether this isn't the time for a serious conversation about amending our extradition laws and treaties to exclude any jurisdictions that don't meet the basic standards of justice expected of a modern democracy.