Wikileaks' founder will be deported to Sweden to face rape allegations within a month. Assange has 14 days to seek to appeal to Britain's supreme court. [Guardian]

22 Responses to “Julian Assange loses extradition appeal”

  1. librtee_dot_com says:

    For the record: Assange has never been accused of rape. The crime he is accused of is ‘surprise sex,’ basically taking a condom off mid-coitus. And being a bit of a dog, and a lousy lover. It’s a significant difference.

    Of course, the Swedish charges don’t really matter. He could probably beat them, and the penalty is not severe. It is a misdemeanor if I recall correctly.

    The real threat is that, due to a treaty between the US and Sweden, as soon as he sets foot on Swedish soil he is liable to be whisked off to a secret US military brig somewhere in this world, held indefinitely without trial (because the govt. has no case) in solitary confinement and torture like the brave and genuinely heroic Bradley Manning now is.

    For the record, there is basically no difference between what an organization like Wikileaks does and what was once known as ‘journalism.’

    • g-clef says:

      If the US wanted him extradited, why didn’t they just do it when the UK nabbed him? The UK has an extradition clause with the US also. (One that, it should be pointed out, many folks in the UK feel is similarly biased in favour of the US.) It’s not clear why anyone thinks that extradition from Sweden to the US would be any easier than extradition from the UK to the US.

      This whole “he’ll be extradited to the US” thing seems to me to be a red herring.

      • Guest says:

         No, it is the UK sticking it to us for lying them into an expensive war. The UK has told the US to go fuck itself at just about every opportunity for the last 2 years, and we’ve taken it in stride, because we have it coming.

    • Skarphedin Njalsson says:

      My problem with this is that it is similar to the type of reasoning that gives rise to the birther movement.  It is this kneejerk reaction against events that defy people’s preconceived notions of the World that causes them to look for deeper meaning in events that, in all likelihood are completely unrelated.

      “It’s impossible for a black president to be elected, there must be some trick, some ruse, some conspiracy by anti-American actors that everyone else is missing but I alone can see.”  
      “It’s impossible for Julian Assange to have sexually assaulted a person.  He’s my hero, and he exposes the world for what it is, so this entire situation must be a farce set up by some shadowy people so they can do bad things to him.”

      I don’t know whether Assange sexually assaulted those girls.  Maybe he did, and maybe he didn’t.  As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant.  He needs to be treated the same as everyone else should be treated in the face of serious allegations.  You can’t argue that the treatment Strauss-Kahn received was justified, and then turn around and say Assange should get a pass.

      • librtee_dot_com says:

        I just went back and read the Guardian article, I hadn’t before. Yes, the allegations are serious, they go far beyond cadishness, and warrant a trial.

        Here’s the problem: this is just a smaller part of a larger story. Assange is more likely to be extradited from Sweden than the UK.

        If Assange is extradited to Sweden, and found guilty of rape, and sent to Swedish prison, I am OK with that.

        If, however, Assange for any reason leaves Sweden unvoluntarily to go to America, to face charges for journalism…then, that will be a terrible day, and par for course for the US. I fear that if the US ever gets their hands on him, he will never be the same person again. These are some of the most evil people in the world we are talking about here.

        While there is truth to what you say, you should not assume it is IMPOSSIBLE for these sorts of people to do virtually any sort of malevolent deed. Heaven knows they have in the past.

        http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf

        VI. If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

        • Skarphedin Njalsson says:

          The extradition treaty with the UK is considerably friendlier to the US than the treaty with Sweden.  While it’s possible that he might extradited from Sweden, his chances are arguably better there than they are in the UK, even with that loophole.

          Even if that wasn’t true, I don’t think the mere threat of extradition to the US is a good enough reason for him not to be extradited to Sweden.

        • Brainspore says:

          If Assange is extradited to Sweden, and found guilty of rape, and sent to Swedish prison, I am OK with that.

          If, however, Assange for any reason leaves Sweden unvoluntarily to go to America, to face charges for journalism…then, that will be a terrible day, and par for course for the US.

          Agreed and agreed. Let’s regroup if and when Assange faces charges for something that actually relates to his work at Wikileaks.

          In the meantime, people shouting “FREE JULIAN!” because of his role in exposing government secrets remind me of the ones who think those statutory rape charges against Roman Polanski should be dropped since he’s such a good director.

      • onepieceman says:

        No, of course it isn’t impossible for him to be guilty, but how on earth is this ever going to be proved beyond reasonable doubt? As I understand it, the sex was initiated consensually, and isn’t denied, so forensics don’t help. What sort of evidence can possibly swing it?

        • ChicagoD says:

          That’s what juries (or judges) do. They weigh the testimony, the credibility of the witnesses, etc. and rule. There were rapes before forensic science, and there were convictions before forensic science. Let the Swedish judicial system do its thing and see what happens.

    • ChicagoD says:

      You know that the boing boing comments section, as influential as they are, are not the place of “record” in this matter, right? I mean, just for the record.

    • anarres says:

      The judges disagreed:

      “76. It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA’s statement in relation to what is complained of – restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates.”

      http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

    • pajp says:

      due to a treaty between the US and Sweden, as soon as he sets foot on Swedish soil he is liable to be whisked off to a secret US military brig somewhere in this world

      Can you back this up with some sort of source? As far as I have understood, it is 1) illegal according to Swedish law to extradite someone while that person is a party of a criminal investigation and 2) illegal according to the UK-Sweden extradition treaty to extradite someone to a third country without the permission of the country from where the person was originally extradited (i.e. UK).

  2. Oskar says:

    For the record: Assange has never been accused of rape. The crime he is accused of is ‘surprise sex,’ basically taking a condom off mid-coitus. And being a bit of a dog, and a lousy lover. It’s a significant difference.

    No, you’re wrong. The crimes he is suspected of are rape, three counts of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. And by the way, taking off your condom mid-coitus, when the woman has made it clear that she does not want that, is rape. She only consented to having sex with a condom. What if he had decided mid-coitus to start having anal sex without the woman agreeing? Wouldn’t that be rape? Besides, he was accused of far more bad things.

    Now, innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but if it did indeed happen the way The Guardian describes the women’s stories, it is absolutely rape, no question about it. Saying anything else, and especially this “surprise sex” nonsense and “he’s a bit of a cad”, is insanely offensive and misogynist. 

    • mazzacane says:

      It’s not as black and white as you make it out to be either.  According to the alleged victim:  she didn’t want to have sex without a condom, so they had sex with a condom.  Later that night he initiated sex without a condom, either while she was asleep or half-asleep (depending on different accounts/translations), to which she immediatedly consented and continued with willingly.  Call it what you want, but as far as I can tell, that’s what she says happened.

    • RobDobbs says:

      Assange is “suspected” of a whole lot more than rape. But rape simply doesn’t seem to be apart of the issue with Sweden. 

      According to Wikipedia: “Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[29] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.”
      This all may fit your personal opinion of what constitutes rape but that don’t make it so in a court of law. Imjusrsayingisall

  3. Summer Seale says:

    I know that I’m going to probably get flamed for saying this on BoingBoing but…

    …I really don’t like Assange, and I don’t see what he does as “Journalism” at all. In fact, I don’t think that most journalists see Assange as a fellow journalist either.

    Assange loathes secrecy, it is true – and I admit that he has done a good job at trying to create a case for transparency which I respect and agree with. However, he also is careless (deliberately so) with information which may result in harm to others. This, I cannot agree with.

    Whilst I do agree with his release of information which showed what amounts to horrific actions by some US Forces in Iraq, I cannot condone the action of releasing everything he obtained by others through illegal means.

    I do not know if he’s guilty or innocent of the charges brought up about him in Sweden. Maybe he’s guilty, or maybe not. But he isn’t a hero to me in any way whatsoever. I think that it is clear that he’s an extremist of the worst sort – the kind of person who throws a grenade into a room full of guilty and innocent people with the catchphrase “Let God sort’em out.”

    I like to think that Wikileaks did some good, but I also know that it did some harm as well – carelessly so, and that is something that I disapprove of. I also disapprove of many of his extremist connections who worked under him and with him with a clear agenda which I also do not condone in any way.

    Of course, I don’t believe that he should be brought up on secret charges at all. I believe that if he broke U.S. law (and I do believe that he has, although that should be proven in court), he should be charged in public. I am. however, curious as to why people think that his extradition to the United States would more easily take place in Sweden than in the United Kingdom? That is something which has never been explained to me. If the U.S. wants to extradite him, why not do it from the country of our most reliable ally? Sweden is not exactly known to go hand in hand with every single U.S. request ever made (not that they aren’t allies, but they aren’t always in full agreement). So, until this is explained to me (and I am not saying that there isn’t a reason, I am saying I don’t know of one yet), I sort of chalk this sort of talk up to paranoid fantasy.

    In the end, I don’t think it is wise or favorable to hold Assange up as a poster boy for anything more than extremist philosophy and careless actions. There are far better people to support with such vehemence who are trying with far more respect to create a transparent world. As far as I’m concerned, Assange is not a person worthy of my support.

  4. shamocracy79 says:

    “For the record, there is basically no difference between what an organization like Wikileaks does and what was once known as ‘journalism.’”

    Very very true.   Back when journalists actually investigated leads, did that thing that was called reporting instead of just repeating what their corporate higher ups tell them the talking points for the day are.  The people who didn’t appreciate the truths the journalists were exposing coined the affectionate term “muckrakers”.  Assange is one of the few muckrakers left today, and it’s extremely telling how he’s viewed by the main stream media indoctrinated zombies.

  5. acb says:

    Even if Assange isn’t extradited to Sweden, chances are he will end his days in US military custody. Britain has robust extradition treaties with the US (i.e., ones which basically give the US what it wants, see also: Gary McKinnon). And even if Britain doesn’t extradite him, the government has stated that he will be deported to Australia, and the Australian government has indicated that it will hand him over to US military authorities and wash their hands of him, David Hicks-style, if they request him.

  6. benher says:

    I love when the circus comes to town. They always pass out free bread!

  7. @Buddhaflow:disqus, the claim that he is ‘only’ accused of removing the condom is bullshit. Quoting from the warrant:

    “1. Unlawful coercion… Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement.  The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

    2. Sexual molestation … Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
    designed to violate her sexual integrity.  Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    3. Sexual molestation… Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

    4.Rape – On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
    expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her.”

    Even if #2 was the only accusation against him: yes, if you have sex with somebody in circumstances that don’t have their consent, it’s rape.

    I was pleasantly surprised to see Geoffrey Robertson (Assange’s lawyer) on TV last night. He managed to do a solid job of defending JA’s rights WITHOUT resorting to slut-shaming or trivialising the allegations. I wish Assange’s other defenders could stay as classy.

Leave a Reply