British Judge Approves Julian Assange Extradition to Sweden

The judge presiding over the case of Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange's extradition to Sweden has ruled he can be extradited.

The Judge ruled Assange can get a fair trial in Sweden and that the extradition request and warrant were valid. He rejected Assange's claim that he also could be extradited to the U.S. or Guantanamo and said there was no evidence Assange faced torture or extradition if that happened.

Assange can appeal the decision.

< Haircuts And Downturns | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As lawyers... (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    Does anyone here believe that the case to prevent extradition to SWEDEN, of all places, had any legal merit whatsoever?  

    As a reader of the Stieg Larsson Girl Who trilogy, (none / 0) (#6)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 10:15:18 PM EST
    plus not a lawyer, I can say that seeing parts of the Swedish legal system through Larsson's riveting books has made me wary of how --and whether-- justice is produced in Sweden.

    I have to say that prior to reading those books, I had nothing but a great impression of Sweden in all aspects which included its legal system.  I think it had something to do with accepting Vietnam War immigrants back then. And their social system and great designs in housing furniture, housewares.

    So, aside from that, I got nuthin.


    No (none / 0) (#2)
    by fiver on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    I don't think his case stood a chance, still I think it's far fetched to say there's no evidence that Assange wouldn't be tortured or held indefinitely if not at Guantanamo then somewhere...

    o/t thought you'd like this diary J:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/948506/-Slave-LaborIn-the-trenches-comparing-treatment-betw een-the-Haves-and-Have-Nots

    Lawyers... Explanation? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Scarabus on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    The U.S. has extradition treaties with both England and Sweden.

    Sweden has openly indicted Assange. But if, as is often asserted, a U.S. grand jury also indicted him, it had to be for a far more serious charge than Sweden's highly dubious "condom broke" thing. My lay person's understanding has been that in such circumstances (barring questions about execution etc.), the most serious charge is given precedence.

    Assuming that's so, why wasn't Assange extradited to the U.S. rather than Sweden? Assuming the U.S. wants to get Assange within its grasp (can anyone seriously doubt that?), why would Sweden be more likely than England to put him there? Why would England be willing/find it politically necessary to do so indirectly?

    Given Guantanamo, the horrible treatment of Bradley Manning, the "black sites," etc., there can be little doubt what the U.S. government will do if they get Julian Assange within their grasp!

    So which "civilized" nation will prove willing to put him there, and why?

    supposedly (none / 0) (#5)
    by fiver on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:04:34 PM EST
    the US has been waiting to see how this plays out...or so I've read somewhere

    First, the US gov't needed to create a bad image (none / 0) (#7)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 10:24:01 PM EST
    for Assange, the better to be able to convict him should he come before a jury in the US.  And also to try to deprive WikiLeaks of monetary support as donors would double think giving an accused rapist money.  Then, of course, pressure on pass through financial organizations also made donating more difficult.

    Second, afaik, the Feds haven't released any indictments...whether bcz they need more information for comprehensive indictments or they just haven't comppleted any yet. Or, they're keeping their powder dry, the better to get Assange into friendly and maleable hands?