Mark Weisbrot: Sweden's Shame. It was like a scene from a Hollywood movie, where the kidnapper walks up from behind, with a gun protruding from his trench coat pocket. "Keep walking, and don't say anything," he warns. Such was the U.K. government's threat three weeks ago to Ecuador, that British police could invade the Ecuadorian embassy if necessary to arrest WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange. But Ecuador's foreign minister didn't keep walking, and said something, to the great embarrassment of the U.K.
Foreign Office. The Foreign Office tried to say it wasn't a threat--although it was now available to the world in writing - and then took it back. But the unprecedented threat to violate the Vienna convention that protects diplomatic missions brought serious criticism from the Union of South American Nations, and then - despite being watered down by Washington - another rebuke from the Organization of American States. The U.K.' But what about Sweden's role in this sordid affair? La Suède, un refuge à toute épreuve pour WikiLeaks? » Article » OWNI, Digital Journalism. WikiLeaks agace les autorités américaines: pour s'en protéger, Julian Assange a depuis quelques mois trouvé refuge auprès des lois suédoises, très protectrices pour la presse. Mais ce refuge est-il aussi solide qu'il y parait ? Wikileaks récidive ! Le site spécialisé dans la publication de documents confidentiels vient de publier un peu moins de 400 000 fichiers sensibles impliquant l’armée américaine en Irak.
L’organisation a même chargé OWNI de réaliser une application de crowdsourcing. Après la diffusion de documents similaires concernant l’Afghanistan en juillet dernier, la plateforme et son fondateur Julian Assange ont provoqué la fureur du Pentagone. C’est autour de l’Europe du Nord que l’éphèbe australien a choisi de graviter, afin de profiter de la législation locale, bien plus favorable aux médias qu’ailleurs. Mais c’est en Suède qu’Assange semble avoir trouvé un havre de paix et une législation extrêmement protectrice. Le bouclier suédois Les Suédois avec WikiLeaks. Legal myths about the Assange extradition. Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case. Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material.
It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote. [Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.] Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law” This is flatly untrue. This is similarly untrue. Extradition proceedings against Julian Assange. In a written statement to Parliament the Foreign Secretary said: “On 20 November 2010, the office of the Swedish Prosecutor-General issued a European Arrest Warrant for the arrest and extradition of Mr Assange, who is alleged to have committed serious sexual offences against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010.
Pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant, police officers arrested Mr Assange on 7 December 2010, who was at that time living in the United Kingdom. On 24 February 2011, a District Judge ruled that Mr Assange should be extradited to face proceedings in Sweden concerning allegations of sexual offences. Mr Assange appealed against the ruling, but on 2 November 2011 two judges at the High Court upheld the decision to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden. Mr Assange appealed again, but the Supreme Court ruled on 30 May 2012 that Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, Mr Assange was given two weeks to seek to reopen the appeal. Sweden vs. Assange. [Liveblog]: UK Court rules Julian Assange will be extradited. There is no doubt that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is the hot controversy. From releasing leaks pertaining to dictators in the Middle East to the Mafia in Italy, it is evident that WikiLeaks has opened a Pandora’s box that springs humanity into the age of transparency. But is Assange really the knight in shining armor which the powerless have been dreaming about? Not according to two women in Sweden, who are trying to extradite Assange from the UK for accusations of sexual misconduct. This personal scandal has changed the WikiLeaks narrative, forcing Assange to fight for his credibility and, ironically, his private life. Is Assange a villain or a hero? OWNI has our correspondent in London for the two-day hearing to find out the final verdict. The French adaptation of this live blogging is available on OWNI.fr [4:30pm] Words from the defeated After a crushing verdict, it appears the defense is squirming in light of the reality of extradition.
Belmarsh was a rubber stamping process. Mr. 1.