Supreme Court rules Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Breaking now:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-30/live-julian-assange-extradition-judgement/4041832
Read more: Supreme Court rules Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Those Old people in the black robes do think themselves as royalty, don't they? Watching Game of Thrones of late, I find their hubris amusing and really of no import, seeing as I'm not even a highborn lady, just a working peasant, but nonetheless, a throne seems very fragile and held together by hubris.
So I guess it's just their job to act like royal asses.
recced not for content but so that more will see this asshattery.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)It was expected but still, disgusting.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
MADem
(135,425 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)A reading comprehension failure, I had there. I've been gone for a while and clearly I'm slipping.
However, having just seen the lining of my uterus, I can assure you I don't have uterine cancer, ergo, I'm not Emily Litella but I am old enough to know the reference.
Never Mind.
boppers
(16,588 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)rarely got the opportunities that male comedians got.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I miss Gilda--seems like yesterday to me, some days!
Then again, I'm OLD!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It's the same for 'Supreme Court.'
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)in our UK Supreme Court they just wear gowns. For historic reasons they are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister - there are no other associations with Royalty.
Jeans and a Megadeath tee shirt would look a bit out of place.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)All kidding aside, I found the reference to Game of Thrones by Tavalon to be well, interesting, given the depictions of rape within the books and the TV series....
Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I was referring to the distinct classes and how America has classes, too, we're just damn stubborn in admitting it. We prefer our Horatio Alger fantasies.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)It was a reading comprehension error, that's all. I am aware of my mistake. In spades.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)The Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly (in my view rightly), on his legal status. Should he come again under their jurisdiction, he will be subject to they decision.
If you choose to live in a democratic society then you must accept that the system sometimes gets it wrong (according to your view) or rightly.
If you don't like the system then get out and change it, don't sit back and let it pass you by.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I've given up on that hope, change thing. I've turned to occupy and anarchism as my compadres.
Edited to add: If you think this country is a Democracy, I've got some beautiful bridges to sell you. Cheap.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Seven judges at the country's highest court rejected by a majority of 5-2 that Assange's claim that a European Arrest Warrant under which his extradition is sought was invalid.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/uk-britain-assange-court-idUKBRE84T0BM20120530
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lost his Supreme Court extradition appeal on Wednesday, and an order to extradite him to Sweden to face sex crimes allegations was upheld.
But his lawyers were also granted a 14-stay on the judgement while they consider applying to re-open the case on a technicality. One of his attorneys asserted that the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties had not been argued by attorneys in the case nor considered by the judges and therefore should be re-opened. The attorney asked the court for two weeks to prepare an application to re-open the case, which the court granted.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/assange-loses-appeal/
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)involving as it does multiple governments. Proving at every point how much that we need Wikileaks.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)If the Feds think they had an Occupy problem before, they ain't seen nothing yet.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)st
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts).
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)Ever wonder how big your file is? I do, and I'm a fine upstanding person who occasionally highway blogs and spends most of her time tending preterm infants and her poly family (who sometimes act like preterm infants - sorry, couldn't resist).
Matilda
(6,384 posts)"I think there is a great danger that Julian Assange may well not only end up going to Sweden but also through to the US.
The Australian Government now should take a greater interest in this case and certainly supply all support that it can." (Independent MP Rob Oakeshott)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-30/live-julian-assange-extradition-judgement/4041832
And that's it in a nutshell - the U.S. is the puppet-master, and the U.K., Sweden, and Australia are all playing along. That's what I don't like about this case.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)'The Australian Government has been extremely weak and they need to decide whether their allegiances are with Washington or the Australian public.' - Greens Senator Senator Scott Ludlam
To me, and probably many other Australians, it's very clear that their allegiance is to the US govt if the interests of the US isn't the same as the Australian public...
pam4water
(2,916 posts)jehop61
(1,735 posts)This man is charged with a crime against women. If he is innocent, why is he fighting to avoid having his day in court? If he is innocent, let justice play out. No matter what else he has done in his life, this rape charge should be settled.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Not the matter in Sweden, not the sealed indictment in the United States. There is no "day in court" in his future.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)The worse threat to the those in power are whistle blowers. They reveal the truth behind the curtain and they absolutely can NOT have people going around telling the truth and describing the crimes of the rich and powerful.
Despite what those handful of rich men think, they do need the masses to shut up and go along.
Pretending that these rape charges are real is just part of shutting up and going along.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)A lot of folks have already decided his innocence and have negated any court of law anywhere? What a progressive idea (Sarcasm)! It is possible he is a flawed person who did great things. Keep your minds open. Let justice play out. Crime against a women or women should be investigated fully.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Just as there is nothing progressive in pretending that the international stalking of Julian Assange or the destruction of Wikileaks has anything to do with prosecuting crimes against women.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)There are no charges against him that he has to prove his innocence. Let Sweden charge him with a crime, and then seek extradition. Seeking extradition because they want to talk to him is bull. They could talk to him in England. He has offered to talk to Swedish police in England.
Pinochet was charged with murder, rape and torture, crimes against humanity, and the Tories went full bore to protect him.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That doesn't mean being a fool, too. You can stop with that stuff right now.
How much do you know about the U.S. grand jury witch hunt against Assange in Alexandria? He has not been charged with any crime anywhere.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)You know they're probably a RWer.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Well spoken. Better than I could have.
And to those who decline to look at my profile, I'm a woman, so don't call me a mysogynist just because I think the charges are bullshit.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)diverted to the US, and the rape charge will never be settled.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)And the Swedish government has shown itself to be colluding with the DoJ's stalking so there is no reason to have confidence in that process.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Sweden is extraditing him for questioning only, a highly unusual situation. The two women concerned continued friendly relations with Assange for days before making any complaint. It's very suspect.
But once in Sweden, he could be extradited to the U.S. and disappear into Gitmo. Sweden does have a track record in assisting with rendition. That's the big worry about this case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In fact, Wikileaks has been asking for donations based on the fact that they believe that Assange has been charged with a crime....
http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html
Assange's legal team has asserted in a court of law that they believe he has been charged with a crime, and thus, they are entitled to access to 802 hearings.
http://ccrjustice.org/files/2012-03-22%20Letter%20to%20Judge%20Lind_Final.pdf
This assertion was made without regard to precedent, statute, or reality, but the fact remains that Assange, and his legal staff do honestly think he has been charged with a crime.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)been charged with a crime in Sweden (or the UK). And there is no evidence, just speculation, that he has been charged in the U.S.
From your link from the CCR: "It appears"
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)be moved elsewhere without British consent. Actually sending him to Sweden creates an extra block on sending him to America that doesnt exist here <in England> ...
from the article linked in the OP
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Oh, wait.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Swedish prosecutors CAN do that, but they haven't for over 500 days.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. It most likely is about destroying Assange. The U.S. wants their hands on him and as far as can be seen, he has committed no crime against the U.S.
Don't be so naive.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Generally, when a suspect flees before a scheduled interview, and goes to another country, courtesy is no longer extended to them. Mr. Assange had an interview scheduled on the 28th of September. He left on the 27th.
Mr. Assanges' defense attorney in Sweden, Mr. Hurtig, testified during the London proceedings that Ms. Ny had attempted to secure an interview with Mr. Assange, but that he left the country the day before the date scheduled:
In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assanges interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden. He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying I have not talked to my client since I talked to you. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: Hello it is possible to have an interview Tuesday. Next there was a message saying: Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I cant say if it was on 21st or 22nd. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said I dont think I left a message warning him (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added I cant say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: Not as far as I am aware.
In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldnt have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
The magistrate who wrote this opinion clearly saw through the subterfuge of Mr. Assange, and his lawyer......one does not accidentially leave a country right before one's scheduled interview, and then, never make it back, unless one knows that one is in deep shit.
Can one find this public document on the Wikileaks site????
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)disgusting.
They can interview him in UK AND attempt to extradite him.
Here's why Assange doesn't want to go back to Sweden: Yeah, he's in deep shit, but not the shit you're talking about.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/12827
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)procedure.
Well, you have a criminal defense attorney answering you.
And, I cited actual court testimony directly on point.
So let me repeat.....when a suspect flees a jurisdiction prior to a scheduled interview, the authorities of that jurisdiction tend to not extend courtesies any longer. They don't have to.
The magistrate's finding of fact clearly indicates that not only did Mr. Assange know of the expected September 28th interview, but that his attorney had warned that a DNA sample collection, and a possible detention were in the works. It is therefore unsurprising that Mr. Assange chose to leave on the 27th, and refused to return.
When the word "PREVARICATE" is used to describe your testimony, (see previously cited) it means the court thinks you are telling untruths. When the court thinks you are telling untruths, they aren't inclined to take your demand for courtesies very seriously. Mr. Assange's lawyer did not serve his client's purpose well.
And that is why Sweden is no longer offering courtesy to Mr. Assange. Because when he was offered, he fled....
You just can't do a Jerry Lundergaard.....
2) As for Game of Thrones, well, I wasn't the one who brought that up...please see the relevant poster regarding their failed literary allusion....
3) That link was priceless....watching Glen Greenwald and Amy Goodman spin Hillary Clinton CT was hilarious!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Which indicates that they are really not so much concerned with interviewing him. And does not answer the question.
2.) I saw the post.
3.) Meh.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)2012-05-30 Facts without truth: How Julian Assange's extradition case is being played by the media
Submitted by Irina on Wed, 05/30/2012 - 09:10
A BBC radio reporter in Stockholm this morning reporting on the Assange case said that Assange left the country not knowing there was an arrest warrant issued for him but managed to avoid bringing up the 5 weeks he waited in Sweden beyond his planned visit to be questioned, only leaving when the Swedes said he could.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Assange knew he had an interview on 28 September. He left on the 27th.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)October 25, 2010
In the Tradition of Sam Adams
Honoring Julian Assange
by RAY McGOVERN
You are not likely to learn this from corporate press but WikiLeaks and its leader Julian Assange have received the 2010 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award for their resourcefulness in making available secret U.S. military documents on the Iraq and Afghan wars.
If the WikiLeaks documents get the attention they deserve, and if lessons can be learned from the courageous work of former CIA analyst Sam Adamsand from Daniel Ellsbergs timely leak of Adams work in early 1968even the amateurs in the White House may be able to recognize the folly of widening the war from Afghanistan to adjacent countries. That leak played a key role in dissuading President Lyndon Johnson from approving Gen. William Westmorelands request to send 206,000 more troopsnot only into the Big Muddy, but also into countries neighboring Vietnam.
<...>
SAAII is a movement of former CIA colleagues and other associates of former intelligence analyst Sam Adams, who hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. Sam did precisely that, and in honoring his memory, SAAII confers an award each year to a member of the intelligence profession exemplifying Sam Adams courage, persistence, and devotion to truth no matter the consequences.
<...>
In the past, the annual Sam Adams Award has been given to truth tellers Coleen Rowley of the FBI; Katharine Gun of British Intelligence; Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; former US Army Sgt. Sam Provance, who told the truth about Abu Ghraib; and Maj. Frank Grevil of Danish Army Intelligence, who exposed his governments eagerness to conspire with the Bush administration in advertising non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and went to prison for it; and Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell at the State Department, who exposed the powers behind many of the crimes of the Bush administration first and foremost what he called the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal;" in Washington, DC.
RAY McGOVERN was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com
For additional context, this year's award winners:
Whistleblowers Honored on Nov. 21
November 16, 2011
In recent decades, information the lifeblood of democracy has often been cut off from the American body politic on national security grounds or because insiders feel it wouldnt be good for the country. To counter that benighted view, a group of ex-U.S. intelligence officials honors brave whistleblowers, this year Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack.
By Ray McGovern
Our countrys need for courageous whistleblowers is now. That is mostly why Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) publicly honors people who have spoken truth, and suffered the consequences, as Sam Adams, my former analyst colleague at CIA, did on Vietnam.
So that is why, this year, we are honoring Thomas Drake, who was a senior official at the National Security Agency where he observed serious waste, fraud and violations of the constitutional rights of Americans, and Jesselyn Radack, a Justice Department lawyer who objected to the abusive treatment of John Walker Lindh, dubbed the American Taliban during the early days of the Afghan War. [See details below.]
We want to encourage people with integrity to blow the whistle, preferably with documents, when circumstances dictate this course of action as the correct moral choice. There are, in other words, what ethicists call supervening values that dwarf non-disclosure promises, and SAAIIs annual award for integrity is an excellent reminder of that reality and of its relevance to today.
<...>
Daniel Ellsberg Defends Julian Assange, Bradley Manning
MATTHEW BARAKAT 12/16/10 04:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON The man who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War defended both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the Army private suspected of providing the site with thousands of sensitive government documents.
Daniel Ellsberg said Thursday that Wikileaks' disclosure of government secrets on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and thousands of diplomatic cables was "exactly the right thing" to do.
"I think they provided a very valuable service," Ellsberg said, also referring to man suspected of leaking the documents, Pvt. Bradley Manning. "To call them terrorists is not only mistaken, it's absurd."
Ellsberg said he frequently hears people praise his 1971 leak of the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War while condemning the WikiLeaks disclosures. The 79-year-old former military analyst rejected that argument, calling Manning a "brother" who, if he indeed provided the documents to WikiLeaks, committed "a very admirable act."
And he said the government is wrong to pursue criminal charges against Assange, comparing him to New York Times and Washington Post journalists who have published information from classified documents.
"Anybody who believes Julian Assange can be distinguished from The New York Times ... is on a fool's errand," Ellsberg said.
Ellsberg once faced criminal charges over his leak, but they were thrown out by a judge.
While generally praising Assange, Ellsberg said Assange should have done a better job in his initial document releases of redacting names of people and sources who could be subject to violence if their names were discovered, such as Afghans who could be targeted by extremists for helping the U.S. He said WikiLeaks has modified its policies to release only documents that are also released by mainstream news outlets.
Ellsberg acknowledged that the government needs to keep some secrets, but said the WikiLeaks documents expose information that the public needs to know, including cables showing that U.S. special forces are engaged in operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
<...>
Monday, May 14, 2012
NOAM CHOMSKY: I dont see anything thats come out on WikiLeaks that was a legitimate secret. I mean, WikiLeaks is a service to the population. Assange should get an award forpresidential medal of honor. Hesthe whole WikiLeaks operation has helped inform people about what their elected representatives are doing. That should be a wonderful thing to do, likeand its interesting. Nothing really sensational has come out, but it is interesting to know, for example...
Ellsberg, Assange, and others attend Bradley Manning press call
May 25, 2011
Bradley Manning Support Network
[img][/img]
Noted attorneys, military experts, and transparency advocates who support Private First Class Bradley Manning held a press teleconference this morning (Wed., May 25, 2011, 11:00am ET) to discuss updates in Mannings situation. PFC Bradley Manning is accused of being the source of revelations leaked to WikiLeaks, including diplomatic cables that many experts believe helped to catalyze democratic revolts across the Middle East. His supporters assert that the information PFC Manning is accused of revealing should have been in the public domain.
The complete audio from the call can be downloaded with the link below: Audio of May 25, 2011 press call (MP3)
The Speakers:
Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks
Jesselyn Raddack, attorney and staff member of the Government Accountability Project
Ann Wright, Retired Lt. Colonel of the United States Army
Christina McKenna, activist arrested at Quantico in an action to support Bradley Manning
Kevin Zeese (moderator), attorney with the Bradley Manning Support Network
FULL TRANSCRIPT: download file (.doc) (.rtf)
Update 3/27/12: Daniel Ellsberg at a whistle-blowers conference, WikiLeaks and freedom of the press, and livestreaming a play about Bradley
Daniel Ellsberg praises Bradley Manning at whistle-blowers conference. At Occupy the Truths whistle-blower conference, Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg lauds Bradley Manning for, if doing what hes accused of, shining light on grave abuses. He talks about his own case, and also about what we can do for Bradley, whom he calls a hero. The segment includes audio from the Collateral Murder video and comments from other soldiers, but Ellsbergs talk begins just after the 13-minute mark:
http://soundcloud.com/flashpoints/flashpoints-daily-49
.
treestar
(82,383 posts)again -
Why bother to destroy him now?
It's most likely just about the charge. Usual criminal court proceedings and usual extradition proceedings.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Hardly worth a response.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)to try to trigger anti-Assange sentiment on a progressive DB by invoking the victimhood status of women?
It's a fair gambit, but still pretty bald. I mean, why else have such a strong opinion of a situation you know virtually nothing about?
Welcome to DU.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I bet you love the universal wiretapping, right? I mean, you should if you don't have anything to hide, right?
boppers
(16,588 posts)The man is delusional and paranoid, to the point that he will burn bridges in a heartbeat if he fears any kind of threat. He fears a huge conspiracy against him around every corner, with massive forces trying to silence and oppress him, and trying to kill him for... setting up websites.
While he relaxes in a mansion.
If you don''t believe me, try working with him.
bupkus
(1,981 posts)I don't watch much TV but last night I was keeping my dog company on the couch and I turned on the TV. I came across "Civilization" with Niall Ferguson. I watched the last half or so. At the end Ferguson asks why the "West", which he claims has led the world for 500 years is no longer the world leader it once was. He claims we had "killer apps": competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the "Protestant work ethic" (LOL) that allowed us to "win". But now the rest of the world has the killer apps too. And we no longer adhere to what once made us great.
Ferguson mentioned rule of law as one of the our great advantages and that stuck with me because we no longer have rule of law as one of our "killer apps" (if you accept Ferguson's hypothesis) here in America, and neither do our allies who do our bidding, like Australia who, for example, willingly followed American orders into Iraq in complete contradiction of rule of law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
So my hypothesis is: The Australian government is using its Supreme Court (sound familiar?) to once again follow U.S. directives, this time to persecute one of its own citizens that the U.S. government wants silenced at any cost.
And, surprise, the PTB are using another S-E-X case to get the job done! Because the ignorant lemmings that make up the bulk of our "democracy" these days react to lurid S-E-X stories better than any other stimulus.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Both lacking in factual premise and verging on sci-fi.
It wasn't an Australian court but a British one, which actually, you know, has jurisdiction. Conspiracies that posit the US or its Supreme Court can manipulate foreign courts is just that, a conspiracy theory. Which of course is supposed to have no place on this board.
bupkus
(1,981 posts)London or Canberra, they both followed U.S. orders into Iraq against the rule of law, which is a hallmark of our own Supreme Court and a tactic used by U.S. administration's to build "coalitions" to support our illegal activities worldwide -- like extraordinary rendition and drone strikes that kill people without due process -- no longer limited to "foreigners" but now expanded to include our own citizens.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)2012-05-29 Four days after Julian Assange verdict, US Secretary Clinton to visit Sweden
The announcement of Clinton's visit to Sweden, which will center around the subjects of "Internet freedom, green energy, Afghanistan and the Middle East", as well as other broad topics such as democracy and counter-terrorism, took place just 3 days after the Supreme Court published a date for Julian Assange's verdict to be issued on (the Supreme Court published the date of its judgment on May 23, Secretary Clinton's visit was announced on May 26).
bupkus
(1,981 posts)Careful you don't get accused of posting "conspiracy theories".
^^^^^^^
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)aside from which it may be re-heard in 14 days time. She'll be there and back home before then.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The Supreme Court published on the 23rd the date - today - it would make its judgment.
But she'll either talk to the Swedish government about this or not. The timing of her trip is relevant or it's not.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I simply pointed out she won't be there at the same time as him because he'll be here in the UK for at least another 14 days now.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Why does she have to be there at the same time as he?
Is she going to pack him up in a bag herself?
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Divided British Court Upholds Extradition of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange to Sweden
<...>
GLENN GREENWALD: I think theres two issues of concern with being extradited to Sweden. One is that, although we dont think about Sweden this way, it is none the less the case that they have a very oppressive I would even say borderline barbaric system of pretrial detention where when somebody is charged with a crime, they are almost especially in Assanges case where hes not a Swedish citizen automatically, more or less, consigned to prison, not released on bail, even though hes proven over the course of the last two years that his appearances can be secured. And not only would he likely be imprisoned pending trial, but he would be imprisoned under very oppressive conditions, where he could be held incommunicato, denied all contact or communication with the outside world. The hearings , pretrial hearings in Sweden, are not public. They are entirely private. The media, the public has no idea what takes place within these hearings. And given how sensitive this case is, the idea that judicial decisions in Sweden will be made privately and secretly is very alarming. But, I think the broader concern is the one you just raised, which is clearly in the U.S. efforts underway, not just to investigate but to convene a grand jury, and there are reports that he had already been indicted with a sealed indictment. There are certainly efforts by the U.S. government to do so, and the real concern is that Sweden, which in the past has demonstrated subservience to the United States with rendition and other things, will hand him over without much of a fight and he will face life in prison under espionage statutes for doing nothing more than what newspapers do every day, which is publishing classified information in the public interest.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, going to Sweden? It is the first time in a very long time that a U.S. Secretary of State is going to Sweden. First, it was announced the high court would be making its decision today, Glenn. Then, Sweden tweeted out that Hillary Clinton would be coming there on Sunday.
GLENN GREENWALD: Right. I mean, one of the causes for concern is that there has been a flurry of activity recently with FBI agents harassing people who are alleged to have communication or contact or association with WikiLeaks. A French citizen and an Icelandic citizen both in the past couple of weeks have been very aggressively accosted by FBI agents on foreign soil. And now you have what looks to be high-level meetings between the State Department, Secretary of State, and Swedish officials. There really is not much of a secret that the Obama administration is busting at the seams to punish Assange. Remember, this is an administration that has more aggressively than any prior president has punished people who are government employees who have been whistleblowers, and yet here is a someone who is not a government employee, has no duty to safeguard classified information, and yet it looks very much like the U.S. government is eager to get their hands on Julian Assange. That has been the concern all along going to Sweden. He has never been worried about facing these charges. He feels very confident that he will be ultimately vindicated, that there is nothing to them. I have no opinion one way or the other on that. He has always been willing to face these accusations. The issue has always been because he is not charged, there has been this extraordinary and unusual effort to get him onto Swedish soil. The fear has always been that is just a pretext for turning him over to the United States, something that Britain would have a very hard time doing for a variety of reasons, but that Sweden, as they have proven, can be coerced and bullied and pressured into doing it fairly easily. Once hes in the grip of the U.S., it is really hard to imagine how he will ever secure his freedom or liberty again, given what the U.S. has demonstrated it is willing to do in terms of flouting conventions of justice and other things when it comes to people accused of harming national security.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why is that though Glenn? Can you explain why would Sweden be more amenable to extradition to the U.S. and not the U.K., which is a very close ally of the U.S.?
GLENN GREENWALD: For one thing, just a matter of basic international relations it is much easier for a country like the U.S. to pressure and coerce smaller countries than it is larger countries. I think there would be a big outcry [NO AUDIO]
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, you were finishing up saying?
GLENN GREENWALD: ...and where Sweden is a small country, much more susceptible to that pressure and again theyve demonstrated in the past to be willing the U.N. Commission found they actually violated international law and prohibitions on oppressive treatment in the way that they allowed CIA agents to basically abduct Egyptian nationals on their soil and render them to Egypt. So, I think theres a real concern when you add on to that the secrecy behind these pre-trial proceedings that theres a much higher risk that Sweden will be complicit in turning over Assange to the United States.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and their cheerleaders are getting anxious.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)obtain their copy here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/latest-judgments.html
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)... BACKGROUND TO THE APPEALS
The appellant, Mr Assange, is the subject of a request for extradition by the Swedish Prosecuting
Authority for the purposes of an investigation into alleged offences of sexual molestation and rape.
Mr Assange is in England. A domestic detention order was made by the Stockholm District Court in
Mr Assanges absence, and was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal. A prosecutor in Sweden
thereafter issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on 2 December 2010 pursuant to the
arrangements put in place by the Council of the European Union in the Framework Decision of 13
June 2002 on the EAW and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA)(the
Framework Decision), which were given effect in the United Kingdom in Part 1 of the Extradition
Act 2003 (the 2003 Act).
Mr Assange challenged the validity of the EAW on the ground (amongst others) that it had been
issued by a public prosecutor who was not a judicial authority as required by article 6 of the
Framework Decision and by sections 2(2) and 66 of the 2003 Act. Sweden had designated prosecutors
as the sole competent authority authorised to issue EAWs in accordance with article 6(3) of the
Framework Decision. Mr Assange contended that a judicial authority must be impartial and
independent both of the executive and of the parties. Prosecutors were parties in the criminal process
and could not therefore fall within the meaning of the term. If, contrary to this argument, prosecutors
could issue EAWs under the Framework Decision, then he still submitted that they fell outside the
definition in the 2003 Act, as it was clear that Parliament had intended to restrict the power to issue
EAWs to a judge or court.
His challenge failed before the Senior District Judge at the extradition hearing and on appeal before
the Divisional Court. The Supreme Court granted permission to bring an appeal on this ground as the
issue was one of general public importance.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court by a majority of 5 to 2 (Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissenting) dismisses the
appeal and holds that an EAW issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 warrant issued by a
judicial authority within the meaning of section 2(2) and 66 of the 2003 Act.
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Article 34 (2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union provides that framework decisions are binding on
member states as to the result to be achieved but that national authorities may choose the form and
method of achieving this. For the reasons given by Lord Mance in his judgment [208-217] the
Supreme Court is not bound as a matter of European law to interpret Part 1 of the 2003 Act in a
manner which accords with the Framework Decision, but the majority held that the court should do so
in this case. The immediate objective of the Framework Decision was to create a single system for
achieving the surrender of those accused or convicted of serious criminal offences and this required a
uniform interpretation of the phrase judicial authority [10][113]. There was a strong domestic
presumption in favour of interpreting a statute in a way which did not place the United Kingdom in
breach of its international obligations [122]
An earlier draft of the Framework Decision would have put the question in this appeal beyond doubt,
because it stated expressly that a prosecutor was a judicial authority. That statement had been removed
in the final version. In considering the background to this change, the majority concluded that the
intention had not been to restrict the meaning of judicial authority to a judge. They relied, as an aid to
interpretation, on the subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which established the
agreement of the parties. Some 11 member states had designated public prosecutors as the competent
judicial authority authorised to issue EAWs. Subsequent reviews of the working of the EAW
submitted to the European Council reported on the issue of the EAWs by prosecutors without
adverse comment and on occasion with express approval [70] [92][95][114-119][160-170].
Lord Phillips felt that this conclusion was supported by a number of additional reasons: (1) that the
intention to make a radical change to restrict the power to issue EAWs to a judge would have been
made express [61], (2) that the significant safeguard against the improper use of EAWs lay in the
preceding process of the issue of the domestic warrant which formed the basis for the EAW [62], (3)
that the reason for the change was rather to widen the scope to cover some existing procedures in
member states which did not involve judges or prosecutors [65] and that the draft referred to
competent judicial authority which envisaged different types of judicial authority involved in the
process of executing the warrant [66]. Lord Dyson preferred not to infer the reasons for the change
[128] and did not find the additional reasons persuasive [155-159]. Lord Walker and Lord Brown also
found these reasons less compelling [92][95]. Lord Kerr relied on the fact that public prosecutors in
many of the member states had traditionally issued arrest warrants to secure extradition and a
substantial adjustment to administrative practices would have been required [104].
Parliamentary material relating to the debates before the enactment of the 2003 Act were held by the
majority to be inadmissible as an aid to construction under the rule in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593,
given the need to ensure that the phrase judicial authority had the same meaning as it had in the
Framework Decision [12] [92][98]. Lord Kerr remarked that that it would be astonishing if Parliament
had intended radically to limit the new arrangements (thereby debarring extradition from a number of
member states) by use of precisely the same term as that employed in the Framework Decision
[115][161].
Lord Mance, dissenting, held that the common law presumption that Parliament intends to give effect
to the UKs international obligations was always subject to the will of Parliament as expressed in the
language of the statute [217]. In this case, the correct interpretation of judicial authority in the
Framework Decision, a question of EU law, was far from certain [244]. Thus if Parliament had
intended to restrict the power to issue EAWs to judges or courts, that would not have required a
deliberate intention to legislate inconsistently with the Framework Decision. As the words in the
statute were ambiguous, it was appropriate to have regard to ministerial statements, and those
statements showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to
be a court, judge or magistrate [261]. Lady Hale agreed with Lord Mance that the meaning of the
Framework Decision was unclear and that the Supreme Court should not construe a UK statute
contrary both to its natural meaning and to the evidence of what Parliament thought it was doing at
the time [191].
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You can't pants a country still wearing Donald Duck underwear without expecting defamation, character assassination and eventual lock-up.