shought Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, a judge has ruled.At Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in south London, District Judge Howard Riddle said the extradition would not breach Mr Assange's human rights.Mr Assange said the ruling, which he will challenge, was due to a "European Arrest Warrant system run amok".The 39-year-old denies three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape last August in Stockholm.He believes the claims are politically motivated because of Wikileaks' publication of sensitive material - including leaked US diplomatic cables - from governments and high-profile organisations that has made headlines worldwide.Mr Assange has been released on bail on the same terms he was granted in December.Bail was granted then after he had spent nine days in Wandsworth prison in London following his arrest under a European Arrest Warrant on 7 December.Following the extradition ruling on Thursday, Mr Assange said: "What we saw today at Belmarsh was a rubber-stamping process. It comes as no surprise, but is nonetheless wrong."There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merits of the allegations made against me, no consideration or examination of even the complaints made in Sweden."He added: "We have always known that we would appeal. We have always known that in all likelihood we would have to apopeal." Source (more...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Some more:Swedish prosecutors want to question Assange about allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies, made by two WikiLeaks volunteers during his time in Sweden last August.One alleges Assange, who has angered the US government by releasing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables on his website, sexually molested her by ignoring her request for him to use a condom during sex.The second woman has said Assange had sex with her while she was asleep and that he was not wearing a condom.Prosecutors say the second allegation falls into the least severe of three categories of rape in Sweden, carrying a maximum of four years in jail.During three days of legal argument earlier this month, lawyers for Assange argued he would not get a fair trial in Sweden and said Swedish prosecutors had mishandled the case against the 39-year-old Australian computer expert.They argued that he might wind up being sent to the United States where he could face execution.Assange’s lawyers also accused Sweden’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of creating a “toxic atmosphere” in Sweden and damaging his chances of a fair trial by portraying him as “public enemy number one”.However, Judge Howard Riddle dismissed the arguments and ordered Assange be extradited although his lawyer said they would appeal against the decision.The Swedish prosecution authority had no immediate comment but would post a statement on its website shortly, a spokeswoman for the office said.Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atasas Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Thanks shoughtWasn't good in finding up to date article.... Sad, sad anecdote of a "rape case" and us small simpletons are being proven- there are no justices- there are games of powerful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted February 24, 2011 Administrator Share Posted February 24, 2011 Another judge forgetting the morals of the court of justice. -_-About the rape, just Googling will lead you to articles about those two ladies planning on their twitter account on how to catch this guy and make publicity of themselves.The angel of journalism is facing a trial just because he exposed the wrong practices.But it's not over yet. Many people would be hating Julian, but the rest are in support. And when whole world screams together, some odd number of people on power won't get chance to put cottons in their ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Thanks shoughtWasn't good in finding up to date article.... Sad, sad anecdote of a "rape case" and us small simpletons are being proven- there are no justices- there are games of powerful :) I read your post and wanted to find out indeed ;)The extradition is fine, if you ask me. This is how it should but, so the UK judge isn't to blame.The Swedish prosecutor is to blame however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalaffa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Slightly unsure about the future of wikileaks. That video of what took place when killing innocent civilians in Iraq was important I guess. Since then a lots of useless gossip info is all I can gather coming from them. I feel wikileaks fading in importance as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atasas Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Thanks shoughtWasn't good in finding up to date article.... Sad, sad anecdote of a "rape case" and us small simpletons are being proven- there are no justices- there are games of powerful :) I read your post and wanted to find out indeed ;)The extradition is fine, if you ask me. This is how it should but, so the UK judge isn't to blame.The Swedish prosecutor is to blame however.We agree to disagree:if "crime" committed, had not been proven to be viable or beyond the doubt for court case in UK- letting it be so in Sweden, means, that case weather is fabricated, but viable. as for rape? surely? nah, total $rap! another whitewash to get him in to legal wrangling and to add charges as per desire of US! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 The UK judge should only look into the charges, not into the evidence. If the UK judge is going to look into the evidence he/she might as well settle the case in the UK...Probably as you said: agree to disagree :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atasas Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 charges of what?- rape?-... can not justify unjust charges as actual witness had not stated Rape under understanding of UK law. He's been residing in UK- decision should have been made upon comprehension of this law as long as it is not in contravention with human right law.simplified, afghan, that looked in to face of wife of Taliban fighter, should note be extradited to Afghanistan to face such "charges". Most importantly "rape" had not been reported or charges filed in Sweden until extortion failing. Swedish legal system appearing ridiculous to be demanding extradition, based on "rape" interpretation and not considering high profile implication. we agree, that Swedish prosecutor is $cum, implication beyond reasonable or justifiable. However UK had a chance to put record straight and lost its face, because it failed to protect person from unfair law interpretations by not so bright one's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.