Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Gerald]

Supreme Court: "The request for Mr Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal is accordingly dismissed"

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences.

Lord Phillips, the court's president, said a majority of five justices to two had ruled against Mr Assange.

The court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made".

However, Mr Assange has 14 days to challenge the ruling and his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, said his lawyers would be asking the court to reconsider.

Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he had been "stuck in traffic".

Following the hearing, he tweeted: "We got the news not hoped for."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18260914

Note: 30 May 2012 Last updated at 13:16 GMT

[Gerald]

At last.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Whatever you may think of Assange, Wikileaks, or the alleged rapes, I don't like the precedent it sets. As I understand it, one tack taken by Assange's defense seems to be that a warrant issued by a public prosecutor is invalid. The Supreme Court says it is.

Well, maybe the European Arrest Warrant Act could be interpreted such that it allows this, but whether you are civil law or common law, a warrant is a permission to violate a innocent's (on the innocent until proven guilty principle) rights. Such power should never be given to the whims of a prosecutor, a man whose sworn duty, even in an inquisitorial system, is to find facts that will incriminate someone.

Horrible affirmative precedent to set...

[Oberon]

It was inevitable, you don't poke a big stick in the affairs of the US military and elite and expect to get away with it.

[gimpy117]

honestly, I feel the charges are 60/40

60% chance of being legit

40% chance of being a fabrication of powers he pissed off.

Lets face it he made many governments angry. it's not outside of the scope of things they have done

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It was inevitable, you don't poke a big stick in the affairs of the US military and elite and expect to get away with it.

1. He will be sent to Sweden, not the US. Not that this decision is based on facts - like there has to be evidence to extradict someone, and there is not.

2. Before you kill or accuse someone you usually try to discredit him before - which is what is happening right now.

3. The US has nothing to do with this, he is not a US subject, so he can not be a "traitor". If an american non-military citizen would have done it, would he be a hero or a traitor ?

4. Who are the real traitors betraying their own people, after having seen what leaked out ? I have not seen ANY reaction on that, anywhere.


And maybe they should clean up their own backyard first ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...pe-us-military
Are those women also accused, and of what ? Would this "whistleblower" also be extradicted, or charged for treason ?

It is really gross that meanwhile people can be accused for having said the truth, by a foreign (!) state ? Or somewhere else, killed by drones without hearing ? Justice has died long ago.


And, besides:


Like it should have been:




How it is:




Cheers,
Catfish

[Skybird]

I don't like what I have read about his character. But:

- what I have read abiout the sweidh laws on sexual harassment I like ven less, it oversteps the bordelrine to total absurdity, imo.

- somebody mighty who feels pissed by Assange and wants to silence him, is using the Swedish setting to carry out his revenge. It is a staged act, and that I also do not like.

The thing stinks to heaven, and always did.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It was inevitable, you don't poke a big stick in the affairs of the US military and elite and expect to get away with it.

Sadly, you may well be right.

Isn't he an Australian citizen?