Wikileaks founder Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition

Why extradite him from Sweden when all the US would have to do is file charges and ask the UK to hand him over? Our extradition treaty with the UK is ridiculous.

The only explanation I've seen is that a Swedish official could authorize the extradition without any kind of hearing. I'd like to see evidence for that claim.

Besides, if we want to be so roundabout, it would be easier to let him go to Ecuador, then quietly abduct him.

Good point! Plenty of people have been extradited from the UK to the USA. It does not make sense that the US would go to the trouble of setting up rape allegations in order to get Assange sent to Sweden when they could have him extradited from the UK with less effort.

Perhaps it was that this was a convenient fuck-up of Assange's own making that could be exploited. Why manufacture anything when this scandal was all set and ready to go?

Seriously. It's far more likely that these charges would've surfaced anyway and had Assange not had the international profile he has, he would've plead out, faced jail time, or simply fled without the end result being an international effort to return him to face the charges up to and including an international incident and revocation of diplomatic protections.

I don't think MFB is arguing that the charges are manufactured, I think, he, like myself, suspects that these aren't the types of charges that typically result in extradition proceedings, much less extradition proceedings which risk an international diplomatic breech and create this kind of high-stakes situation.

Which, sadly, implies that if there ever is a trial, the result will be tainted virtually from the start, with Assange's supporters questioning everything from the veracity of the charges to begin with to the ruling of jury or court at the end.

Also, I'm pretty much just stating the obvious, aren't I? I do that sometimes.

I think it's pretty obvious that this is a witch hunt just because like everyone has already stated, no country is going to jeopardize its diplomatic standing with another country over accusations of rape.

I just think this whole thing will make a great movie one day, especially of Assange manages to sneak out of the embassy with some elaborate disguise and clever ruse aided by the wiki leaks hackers. That would be awesome.

I'm not sure why the US hasn't taken what appear to be easier routes. But the UK is threatening to discard the concept of diplomatic immunity. And Sweden has thus far refused the opportunity to question Assange in the UK. Neither of these attitudes speak to the idea that this is all just a coincidence.

Given the current state of general affairs, stating obvious truths could be viewed as a patriotic duty.

I don't think that's accurate. It's the concepts of asylum and embassy sovereignty that are in jeopardy. Diplomatic immunity applies to (usually high-ranking) members of a diplomatic mission, and usually only protects them from prosecution of minor offenses (not, as Hollywood crime dramas would have us believe, crimes like rape and murder). Assange is not a member of the Ecuadoran diplomatic mission, plus the crime of which he is accused is not one which would be eligible for immunity, even if he were diplomatic staff.

Is there any evidence the UK is seriously considering that option, and it didn't simply come out of a brainstorming session of possibilities, and the media ran with it?

Is it customary for Swedish prosecutors to travel to foreign countries to question accused rapists?

I don't know. But not knowing is no reason to jump to conspiracy theory explanations through some kind of conspiracy of the gaps argument.

Furthermore, on the one hand it's apparently suspicious that authorities would go to so much extraordinary trouble over rape charges (e.g., trying to extradite). On the other, it's suspicious they won't go to extraordinary trouble over rape charges (e.g., by sending prosecutors to a foreign country to question). So what would't be suspicious?

According to The Guardian:

That's more than just brainstorming.

The fact that the charges were brought at all--after being reduced, and then ramped back up--is suspicious. It's probable that they have merit, it's possible that they'd have been brought regardless, but the level of interest on all sides is suspicious++. I mean, look at the kinds of things people get away with using the cover of diplomacy. No nation is going to threaten to revoke an embassy's diplomatic status over rape allegations. One can argue pretty strongly about the injustice of that reality, but it is the reality. (And to say that letter wasn't a threat is like saying Don Corleone just thought Jack Woltz loved sleeping with horse heads.)

Sweden attempting extradition isn't suspicious. The degree to which the UK is attempting to comply is suspicious, and the fact that Sweden is refusing other options is also suspicious, albeit to a lesser degree ("fuck you" being a reasonable response to "I'm going to ignore this lawful order to come to you; why don't you come to me instead").

One conspiracy theory answer to "Why Sweden?" is that Sweden frequently holds its prisoners incommunicado. Once he was locked up there, he'd be cut off from the meia. That is - his company and all his support.

The following article is well worth reading

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Sure. But going into a country's embassy and taking someone when that country doesn't want you to? That's kind of a big deal no matter who it is, isn't it? I have to pass through an area that is diplomatically considered US soil in order to get to work. It's very much its own world and everyone treats it as such. I imagine an embassy would be that on a much grander scale. Secret stuff goes on there, and their sovereignty is important.

Even my landlord has to give me 24 hours notice before they can enter! Of course, now that I think about it, they've got a little "well, if it's an emergency, we can enter whenever we want anyway" clause too.

Also, some more articles responding to the pro-Assange comments by Respect MP George Galloway.

Note the article below carries the following warning...

Warning: This piece contains explicit sexual detail
Assange case: How is rape defined?
The article compares definitions of rape, consent and incapacity in Sweden, England and Wales, Scotland, the United States and Germany.

In the following article, Conservative MP Louise Mensch is cited as calling for a female Justice Minister.
MP demands female Justice Minister, after rape comments

Her remarks were partly inspired by three incidences of male politicians speaking about rape
1. George Galloway's pro-Assange comments,
2. remarks made by the incumbent Justice Minister Ken Clarke last year
3. US congressman Todd Akin's remarks on the subject of abortion and 'legitimate rape'

Note: It is doubtful that Louise Mensch has herself in mind for the Justice Minister role as she plans to quit politics and to move to the USA where her husband, (a rock band manager) lives.

UK can end Julian Assange row - Ecuador's Rafael Correa

Also

Anonymous hits UK government websites in Assange protest

I'm pretty fascinated by the semantical wrangling over the implied threat. If UK law allows the British government to revoke some traditionally understood and accepted diplomatic protections should they determine they're being abused, it almost goes without saying that the accused party (in this case Ecuador) will argue that they're not violating the spirt or letter of the law, or both.

The fact is that just because the UK decides to stop recognizing the Ecuadoran mission as protected foreign soil within the UK doesn't mean Ecuador's embassy staff or guards simply will step aside and either allow law enforcement into the embassy or force Assange to march out the front door. There's clearly another step between revoking diplomatic protections and taking Assange in to custody, and if it isn't armed law enforcement officers entering (not necessarily "storming" or "attacking") the embassy, what, exactly, is their plan?

I would be shocked to discover that no one has developed a contingency plan for storming the embassy and snatching Assange, given in part that we're talking about a country that breaks up prison riots with special forces units. That doesn't mean it's the end goal, just that military and paramilitary organizations make a habit of trying to plan for all possible contingencies and having to assault the embassy in some way certainly seems like it would fall under that heading.

to much brains, and not enough good sense. What exactly will that accomplish?

Ecuador: UK Wikileaks' Julian Assange 'threat' over

Julian Assange 'has lung infection'

Translation - You may not be arrested during the trip to the hospital or not. But don't plan on going back to the embassy.

If Mr Assange were to leave the embassy in order to visit a hospital, he would have no cause for concern because our government would ensure that he was well taken care of. Here's what would probably happen...
- Mr Assange would be provided with a police escort to the hospital because, as a visitor to this country, he may be unfamiliar with the winding streets of London (you are in a twisty, turny maze of passages; it is dark here) and the poor chap might take a wrong turn, lose his way and end up inadvertently boarding an airplane to Ecuador and, as we all know from the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony, the UK NHS is the best health service in the world so we need to ensure he makes it to a UK hospital for 'treatment'
- a police officer would then stay by Mr Assange during his entire stay in hospital so that he doesn't get lonely
- once Mr Assange leaves the hospital, he will probably receive a police escort to the nearest police station as, having helped him with his physical health, it would be jolly decent to help our guest with his moral health as well
- after that I expect that our government might give Mr Assange a free holiday (someplace nice like Sweden).

You make it sound so much better than my cynical summary.

Irony is, Swedish prisons are probably a lot better than the broom cupboard he's living in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Ever since watching Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (the 2009 version) I've daydreamed about going to Sweden and doing something to get myself locked up for a while. (I'm not saying anything bad about Sweden's justice system--just that, personally, a quiet room with a laptop would be a really nice place to spend a few months.)