• There's still hope: Assange wins latest round in extradition fight
    29 replies, posted
[release] [B]Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won the right to petition the UK Supreme Court in his fight against extradition to Sweden.[/B] He lost a High Court battle last month to be extradited over alleged sex offences, which he denies. Judges refused Mr Assange permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court - but said his case raised "a question of general public importance". He can now directly ask the Supreme Court to look at his case. However, Mr Assange, who was at the London court to hear the judges' ruling, still has no automatic right to be heard by the highest court in the UK. He was cheered by supporters as he left the Royal Courts of Justice and, alluding to an MPs' debate later on calls for the renegotiation of extradition rules, he said there were "many aggrieved families in the UK and other countries and in Europe struggling for justice". Speaking of his own case, he said: "I think that is the correct decision, and I am thankful. The long struggle for justice for me and others continues." [B]'Politically motivated'[/B]Mr Assange, 40, is founder of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, which has angered the United States by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified US documents. The Australian faces extradition over accusations he raped a woman and sexually molested another in Stockholm in August last year. He denies the allegations. [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16027942#story_continues_2"]Continue reading the main story[/URL][h=2]Legal process explained[/h]No automatic right to be heard in UK's highest court Supreme Justices consider important points of law Lower courts must first certify a point of general public importance Appellant can then petition Supreme Court It then decides whether to examine a case in full Mr Assange was arrested in London a year ago on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and has been living at the country estate of a supporter under stringent bail conditions. He claims his arrest was politically motivated and linked to the activities of Wikileaks. District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in February that Mr Assange should be extradited to face investigation following a hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in central London. The decision was upheld at the High Court last month. Mr Assange attempted to appeal the decision on two grounds. He argued the highest court should consider whether his extradition would be unlawful because the request was made by a "partisan prosecutor working for the executive" and whether he could be defined as "the accused" even though no decision has been taken to prosecute him. [B]'Quickly as possible'[/B]On Monday the High Court certified that the case raised the question of whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued the EAW against Mr Assange was a "judicial authority". Mr Assange's lawyers argue the prosecutor was not, and the warrant was therefore invalid. Mark Summers, appearing for Mr Assange, said: "Public prosecutors should not, in any circumstances, be permitted to issue EAWs." One of the two judges, Sir John Thomas, told Mr Summers the court's view was that it had "very little doubt that, as a matter of law, the prosecutor was within the scheme" for issuing warrants, and Mr Assange's chances of success in the Supreme Court were "extraordinarily slim". But the judge said the court felt "constrained" to certify that the case raised a question of general public importance. However, it would be left to the Supreme Court to decide whether to give Assange actual leave to appeal, it was ruled. Sir John said: "If leave is granted by the Supreme Court we would, for obvious reasons, ask that the point is decided as quickly as possible." Outside the court Mr Assange's lawyer, Gareth Peirce, said his legal team had 14 days to submit a written petition to the Supreme Court. She told reporters that if the court refused to hear the request then Mr Assange would have exhausted all legal avenues in Britain.[/release] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16027942[/URL]
There's still hope: That a criminal of the United States of America (God bless) will be caught and tried for his crimes against humanity
Good, the EAW system is flawed and should be looked at properly IMO. [editline]5th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;33581891]There's still hope: That a criminal of the United States of America (God bless) will be caught and tried for his crimes against humanity[/QUOTE] That's nice and all but has fuck all to do with this in the slightest.
The americans want him bad, hopefully it stays that way and he can expose some shit.
Hope America wont get her dirty hands on him.
[QUOTE=Miskav;33595837]Hope America wont get her dirty hands on him.[/QUOTE] Well what if I want to get my hands on him?
[QUOTE=superdinoman;33595840]Well what if I want to get my hands on him?[/QUOTE] Sexual assault.
The whole rape thing seems like a farce to me It's just a trick to get him to Sweden, who are more friendly with extradition to the United States The second he touches down in Sweden the US is going to have him charged with espionage or something similar and the rape trial won't even get a chance to happen he'll be gone so quick US has been pulling the strings on this one since the beginning
i forgot all about this guy they're still going through this?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33595922]The whole rape thing seems like a farce to me It's just a trick to get him to Sweden, who are more friendly with extradition to the United States The second he touches down in Sweden the US is going to have him charged with espionage or something similar and the rape trial won't even get a chance to happen he'll be gone so quick US has been pulling the strings on this one since the beginning[/QUOTE] Ah but he would legally be in UK custody for his entire time in Sweden, its an oddity of extradition law. If the US wanted him that badly they would have done it by now, the UK has such a horrible and biased extradition treaty with the US he would have been there in no time at all. They do not even need to provide a single shred of evidence.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33595922]The whole rape thing seems like a farce to me It's just a trick to get him to Sweden, who are more friendly with extradition to the United States The second he touches down in Sweden the US is going to have him charged with espionage or something similar and the rape trial won't even get a chance to happen he'll be gone so quick US has been pulling the strings on this one since the beginning[/QUOTE] yeah, wouldn't be the first time the US has charged no US citizens with 'assisting the enemy' charges before either
Can we just lock him up already and put an end to this? Regardless of what you think of his business the man is a rapist.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;33601142]Can we just lock him up already and put an end to this? Regardless of what you think of his business the man is a rapist.[/QUOTE] Good to see that innocent till proven guilty is still alive and kicking.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33595922]The second he touches down in Sweden the US is going to have him charged with espionage or something similar and the rape trial won't even get a chance to happen he'll be gone so quick[/QUOTE] I'll be quick to come back here and cite this post when none of that happens.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33601197]I'll be quick to come back here and cite this post when none of that happens.[/QUOTE] You are wrong, that will be exactly what happens.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;33601142]the man is a rapist.[/QUOTE] do you know how sweden's "rape" laws work? you should look them up.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33601197]I'll be quick to come back here and cite this post when none of that happens.[/QUOTE] How much money you want to bet?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33595922]The whole rape thing seems like a farce to me It's just a trick to get him to Sweden, who are more friendly with extradition to the United States The second he touches down in Sweden the US is going to have him charged with espionage or something similar and the rape trial won't even get a chance to happen he'll be gone so quick US has been pulling the strings on this one since the beginning[/QUOTE] This won't happen at all. I like to hedge my bets.
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;33602680]How much money you want to bet?[/QUOTE] How much you got?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33602285]do you know how sweden's "rape" laws work? you should look them up.[/QUOTE] I'd rather you tell me so I don't have that in my Google search history.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33603858]I'd rather you tell me so I don't have that in my Google search history.[/QUOTE] Consensual sex/without a condom ending in the woman regretting it in any way = Rape. Iirc.
[QUOTE=Miskav;33608973]Consensual sex/without a condom ending in the woman regretting it in any way = Rape. Iirc.[/QUOTE] Well that's quite a mischaracterization. Really the only difference I've seen is that you can retract consent within a certain timeframe, and I would hardly say it's as simple as "the woman regretting it makes it rape".
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33609032]Well that's quite a mischaracterization. Really the only difference I've seen is that you can retract consent within a certain timeframe, and I would hardly say it's as simple as "the woman regretting it makes it rape".[/QUOTE] Regret is a form of retracting consent isn't it? "I didn't want to do that" = No longer consensual
That's one stupid law, how could the men know she would regret it afterwards when she consented to the sex?
can men retract consent as well? if both parties regret it, is it simultaneous, double rape?
Fun fact: if you take Belgium's rape laws literally, sticking a finger in someone's ear is rape. (Rape is defined as any form of unwanted penetration.)
[QUOTE=Gilboron;33612345]Fun fact: if you take Belgium's rape laws literally, sticking a finger in someone's ear is rape. (Rape is defined as any form of unwanted penetration.)[/QUOTE] I'm gonna finger-rape your ear. Regardless of funny rape laws, I still think he should be let go. The man created a website, using freedom of speech. Content is posted that is incriminating against a state. The owner of the website is only charged. Allow me to ask these simple questions then: Are you not allowed to write whatever you want in America? If not, where the hell is freedom in that. And second: Where are the others that uploaded the content. Why is Assange only getting the blunt of the sentence.
[QUOTE=Miskav;33595837]Hope America wont get her dirty hands on him.[/QUOTE] asteroidrules, Facepunch's finest Christian Fundamentalist patriotic American disagrees with you. Who would've fucking guessed.
Sweden will give him to the US so i hope he can stay in the uk. We have always fallen for us demands.
[QUOTE=Miskav;33608973]Consensual sex/without a condom ending in the woman regretting it in any way = Rape. Iirc.[/QUOTE] Swedish laws define rape as this: [quote="Penal Code Chapter 6 on Sex Offenses"][B]1 §[/B] Whoever by abuse or otherwise by force or by threat of criminal act compels a person to sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure a sexual act which, because of the violation and the circumstances are otherwise comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for least two and up to six years. The same applies to a person conducting a sexual intercourse or a sexual act that under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improper use of that person because of unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug abuse, illness, injury or mental disorder or are otherwise in a helpless state. If an offense referred to in the first or second paragraph under the circumstances of the crime to be regarded as less serious, it is sentenced for rape to imprisonment for up to four years. If the crime referred to in the first or second paragraph is considered gross, convicted of aggravated rape to imprisonment for at least four and no more than ten years. In assessing whether the crime is gross special consideration shall be, if violence or the threat of a particularly serious nature or if more than an abused victim, or otherwise participated in the assault or the perpetrator according to the procedure or otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality. [I]Act (2005:90)[/I]. [B]§ 2[/B] A person who, otherwise than as referred to in § 1 first paragraph, by unlawful coercion induces another person to undertake or endure a sexual act, is convicted of sexual coercion to imprisonment for no more than two years. The same applies to performance of a sexual act other than that as described in § 1 second paragraph with a person under the conditions otherwise specified. If the crime referred to in the first or second paragraph is considered gross, convicted of aggravated sexual coercion to imprisonment of between six months and six years. In assessing whether the crime is gross special consideration shall be taken if more than one has abused the victim, or otherwise participated in the assault or if the perpetrator otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality. [I]Act (2005:90)[/I]. [B]§ 3[/B] Whoever induces another person to undertake or endure a sexual act by serious abuse of the person who is in dependence of the offender, is convicted of sexual exploitation to imprisonment not exceeding two years. If the offense is serious, it is sentenced for gross sexual exploitation of a dependent person, to imprisonment of between six months and a maximum of four years. In assessing whether the crime is gross, special consideration shall be if more than one person abused the victim, or otherwise participated in the assault or if the perpetrator otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness.[I] Act (2005:90)[/I]. [/quote] (Google translated, actual translation of texts like these takes ages) Source: [url]https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K6[/url] (Swedish) These were the laws that the allegations filed against Assange claimed that he violated. The details of the allegations can be found here: [url]http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Allegations.html[/url] Please note that the law doesn't mention retraction of consent, because you can't do that. It's a misconception and sadly it has grown to be a factoid. Please also note that Assange hasn't actually been tried for the allegations against him, he is still innocent in the eyes of the law, even in Sweden. Even if it is likely that Sweden will extradict Assange to the U.S., it's not guaranteed that he will be extradicted, because he hasn't been tried yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.