Published: 24 Feb 11 10:30 CET | Print version
Updated: 24 Feb 11 13:36 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/32238/20110224/
A UK court has ruled that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over sex crimes allegations.
External link: UK court ruling on Assange extradition request »
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
Politicians in the small Swedish town of Falköping want to give alcoholics and drug users a glass-encased zone in the middle of a central square, saying it would lessen public disturbances and allow "the down and out" to socialize. READ () »
The European Commission opened an in-depth probe on Wednesday to see if state aid given to Scandinavian Airlines by Sweden and Denmark conformed to EU rules. READ () »
In The Local's new Fashion Fix column on Swedish trends, Englishwoman Victoria Hussey gets up close and personal with shoes - namely "brothel creepers" from WWII that have been making a steady return to Stockholm pavements. READ () »
Imported frozen raspberries should be boiled before eaten according to new advice from Sweden's National Food Agency, which warns that the berries may carry the novo virus that is more known for causing winter vomiting disease. READ () »
A deceased patient who had no relatives was left in a room for five days at the Örebro University Hospital before staff realized the body was still there. READ () »
Stockholm bus traffic was at a standstill Wednesday as drivers launched a major strike at midnight, but a group of Conservative youths disrupted the action by replacing a bus route between two of the city's major hospitals. READ () »
Sweden Democrat MP Kent Ekeroth has to pay tax for money sent to his bank account as donations to two far-right websites that he claims to have nothing to do with editorially. READ () »
For some foreigners living in Sweden, a natural "inner Swede" can develop that often doesn't show its face until you're back home again. The Local's Patrick Reilly lists the top ten ways this inner Swede can change your life. READ () »
More news from Germany at thelocal.de
More news from France at thelocal.fr
More news from Norway at thelocal.no
More news from Switzerland at thelocal.ch
Register now for:
> Free use of noticeboard
> Special discounts
> Weekly news roundup
> Unlimited use of discuss
Kentucky’s Bourbon Royalty Visits Sweden »
"He's not a celebrity in Sweden, but everyone in Kentucky knows the name Fred Noe. Even more people know the name of his great-grandfather, Jim Beam." READ »
Your comments about this article:
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated. Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
Boycott the swedish economy
do not buy at Ikea, do not visit Sweden.
F*ck these b*stards. Sweden has no rule of law, no standards no independece, it is the small dog licking the fist of steal of the mighty roge evil US government.
It is always bad that a state uses its power against a little man who is trying to make a living.
He's a paranoid, pathatic little person who needs his followers to make him feel like a man of power. He's nothing."
I would 100% guarantee you would do the same if your life was under threat. The U.S. legal system is more comical than the Swedish. I expect now his execution date is already being set by U.S prosecutors. They will be wringing their corrupt hands in anticipation of his likely extradition to U.S soil.
Been a couple of times since you have been "enlightened", seems like you wait for articles like this to post that same exact message.
Thats known as trolling, and you are welcome for the further enlightenment.
@Philster61: I fully agree. What would you do if a government threatens you to prosecute you for not using a condom with a women you just had (consensual, I haste to add) sex with...? That would feel so weird that you would rightfully suspect other motives for prosecuting you than the lack of condoms...
Again, I repaet, I am very, very much ashamed of Sweden... Quite frankly, it is one of the last countries i would have expected this lapdog-attitude from, more akin to Britain... But well, the truth is out.
Swedes, be ashamed...
You say Assange should come back to Sweden and prove he didnt rape the 2 women. Sorry you dont understand law. Assange doesnt have to prove anything, he is innocent until proved guilty. He can say nothing if he wants. As for coming back, if it happens he will be held in prison without bail for months if not a year, without access to the internet or media. Would you be happy to do that if you were innocent? His best course of action is to expose this sham non-case in the media and hope Sweden drops it.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-war-on-wikileaks-a-john-pilger-investigation-and-interview-with-julian-assange
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
@Steve911
Sorry for my poor choice of words. What I meant was that he should come back and make THEM prove the charges against him. As I said, I don't believe it qualifys as a rape charge. But a real man would stand up for himself.
I don't believe he will be held in prison without bail for months if not a year, without access to the internet or media. In the past six months, Charles Manson has been caught with two cell phones in his maximum security prison cell in the US.
Do you really believe Assange would have no access to the outside world from a cell here? I don't believe it anymore than I believe he'd be put in prison for a year, awaiting trial.
I've read it and that's why I don't understand why Assange is acting so cowardly.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/jud-authority-sweden-v-assange
As for the PM's supposed intervention, I can't see anything wrong with a prime minister restating that his country's judiciary is independent of the executive. Its not getting involved, its merely stating that he isn't involved. Not something for the faithful to get worked up about.
I think JA made a very poor decision in contesting this. He should have gone back long before the issue of extradition came up. Even if, in an unlikely scenario, he avoids extradition, the EU arrest still holds and he will be arrested upon arrival in any other European country. The US is out-of-bounds to him so there are a limited number of places left in the world for him. This can't be much fun for a nomad. Furthermore, if it ever comes to a trial he will have the advantage of rich supporters and a watchful media something most foreigners caught up in another country's legal systems don't have.
For someone who is supposedly rather clever, he's behaved very foolishly. Maybe he gets a kick out of feeling like a martyr...
As to your assertion that there are a limited number of places left in the world for him, I guess he could go hide out with Bin Laden since they both seem to be so scared ot the US.
(1) He has not been charged
(2) Despite your belief that he wont be held in prison. Ms Ny has requested that he be held in detention incommunicado. This is normal practise in Sweden for foreigners awaiting trial, something to bear in mind as a foreigner yourself. The wheels of Swedish 'justice' move very slowly, so 1 year to wait for trial is not uncommon for complex cases,
If: (1) He has not been charged
What is he so afraid of?????
and: (2)...... I'll watch my step.
why doesn't the prosecution fly over to the UK to ask these questions?
why don't they do a web-cam chat?
why didn't they ask JA when he was in sweden?
why don't they make a simple phone call?
why hasn't he been charged with anything? oh wait, he has not done anything wrong.
i've never seen more of a misuse of INTERPOL, political powers or the legal system as i have with this case. WOW!
Why is he being a coward if he hasn't done anything wrong? Why does he have to have his mommy keep the bullies away from him? WHY???
The police don't generally interview suspects over the telephone/skype (for good reason).
Since you know that he's done nothing wrong you should offer your services to the judicial systems of the world. You can pronounce innocence or guilt on various cases based on newspaper reports and leaked documents. This would save a fortune in legal costs.
See the 16 December 2010 article in The Guardian for how Manning is being held and the pressures he is under. The US extreme right (Tea Party) are anxious to nail Assange, whatever it takes. See also the article in Fox News of 2 January 2011.
What is shameful is Sweden's complicity in this Tea Party witch hunt.
Check out on Wikipedia the following: Bradley Manning, Eric Holder (The first Afro-American US Attorney-General), and Republican Congressman from California Darrell Issa. There is lots more, but this should be enough to be getting on with.
"The main criticism comes from the Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman. She does not know Ms Ny. She bases her opinion on what she has been told by this defendant's lawyers and articles she had read in the press. In fact she
produced comparatively little evidence to support her strong criticism of Ms Ny. I refer briefly to that part of her evidence at page 3 above. Moreover she confirmed that she had no direct personal knowledge of what had
happened in the investigation. Her evidence is based upon facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. Mr Hurtig denied telling her that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He has never met her. There is therefore no clear evidence as to the source of the information on which Brita Sundberg-Weitman formed her opinion. One probable explanation is that Mr Assange's London lawyers provided her with material they had in turn received from Mr Hurtig. However there are other explanations and the evidence is simply unclear on this point. Mr Alhem expressly made no judgement on Ms Ny. Mr Hurtig clearly does know the prosecutor personally. He has not directly accused her of lying, or of malicious intent, but has strongly criticised her judgement. However, insofar as there were significant differences between his evidence and her evidence on facts known to them both, he conceded in cross-examination that her evidence is substantially correct."
I bet you don't even live in Sweden, do you.
Hey! give Steve911 a break here! A person caqn only come up with so much bull in one day. He needs time to think of more to say. Thanks in advance for understanding.
@Nomark
why should JA have to travel to sweden?
he has NOT been charged with anything!
both of you keep ignoring that fact, r u mentally challenged?
trying to make sense of your ignorance DOES mentally challenge me.
If you read my posts properly you would see that I made some additions. What have you got against cut'n'paste anyway, the Local use it all the time (not very well most of the time). ;)
You asked why should JA go back to Sweden when he hasn't even been charged. I would have thought the answer is obvious. A warrant was issued for his arrest in Sweden and he is facing extradition. The rest of Europe is blocked off to him (warrant is still valid even if the Brits would turn it down) and, even if did evade the Swedes, he would be known as that bloke who ran awake from the rape accusations.
He should have gone back a long time ago and sorted this out. As it is, it looks like he'll be going back in handcuffs rather than of his own volition.
I'm curious. Why do you think I'm mentally challenged for articulating this argument ? I tend to find that those who engage in name calling do so because they lack a counter argument. Is this the case with you ?
Never sleep with stranger(s) especially if you were a man.
@uscitizen
sure, a warrant has been issued but have a look at why?
when in history has this every happened before? NEVER!
on one hand, you guys are right, he should go back and prove his innocence (and i'm ignoring that he has NOT been charged with anything right now) BUT its clear that this case is not just about the so-called sexual allegations.
so, no he should not go back as its clear the politicians AND courts are being swayed by a higher power.
have a read over this guys /girls and get back to everyone...
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
personally, if this was happening to me, i'd be scared $hitless!! not by the two woman but by whoever is making all this happen.
have you read the leaked police transcripts at all?
if so, then you would realize that using the word 'rape' is nothing more than a media grab for attention.
again, i ask you guys/girls, why was interpol involved in this? when has there EVER been a precedent to even need their involvement before?
i can appreciate our differences in opinion but...
He's in over his head, may end up in jail in Sweden though in the end there is no case to be had in the US.
This is all just a mindf*%k to scare the hell out of him and any copycats.
I hope you got some sleep last night and sobered up from the booze or drugs or whatever was making you crazy.
"using the word 'rape' is nothing more than a media grab for attention."
WoW! So what is screaming and crying that he'll be sent to the US and immediately executed? Well, that is if he isn't sent to GitMo first and tortured for years THEN executed. What kind of attention grabber is that compaired to "I was raped".
For goodness sakes man, sober up! Get back on your meds or get your prescription changed. It isn't working anymore.
Read post #54 by technoviking: "in the end there is no case to be had in the US."
'Nuff said.
Could I request one clarification ? I suggested JA could go back to answer questions. Why does that imply he needs a residence permit ? A short visit would be required. The fact that he was turned down as a long term resident is neither here nor there.
Since I'm mentally challenged (according to you) you'll understand that I don't quite see the logic in your post.
@Liquidmonkey I note you still haven't addressed the issue I raised. Regardless of what you think about the alleged offence, the arrest warrant has been issued and through his actions since then he is making life worse for himself. "HE HASN'T BEEN CHARGED" (your upper case). Errrm - irrelevant according to the UK judge who, unlike you, looked at the evidence and interpreted the law. It also doesn't imply that he shouldn't participate in the inquiry. Its probably sensible though also futile to remind you that, whatever you think you know it is undoubtedly only part of the story and, furthermore, you are undoubtedly extremely biased. I know that I'm mentally challenged (I've been told twice, I really should send that PhD from a renowned university back) but I just can't see anything to suggest that you have critically looked at evidence and to form an expert opinion.
It was to the point, and 'cut-n-paste' seems to be "The Thing-to-do" here on the local : ) LOL
"Have you ever heard of anyone outside of Sweden being accused of rape because their condom broke or because their partner was sleeping (not including drink / drug cases)? Pleassssse give me a break, I wasn't born yesterday. This case is costing Swedish & UK taxpayers millions. There is no justification for the authorities pursing this case if it was just about crime, there is a political dimension. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I think if JA ends up being locked up incommunicado for a year or so in Sweden awaiting trial, it will be job done for the American, Swedish & UK political establishment, as Wikileaks will have all blown over by then. As for the 2 women involved who claim to be political activist's of the left, their political principles seemed to evaporate fast as soon as hard cash was dangled in front of them by a certain Swedish tabloid, doesn't that seem strange?"
u say the judge looked at the evidence.
what evidence?
do u mean the accusation by the two woman?
do u mean the interpol warrant?
if u mean the warrant, look at how that came about.
does that not seem at all weird to you?
it should scare the $hit our of everyone that an arrest warrant can be issued through interpol based on an accusation alone.
u seem to be totally overlooking that point.
this ENTIRE case is based on nothing more than a weak accusation.
did u read that link i sent above?
Please reread my posts. The context in which I use the word "evidence" makes it obvious.
You really should stop ranting btw. One dimensional monologues using UPPER CASE aren't particularly instructive.
But then again, I'm mentally challenged. What would I know ?
Do you think his own country would hand him to Sweden without any question?
Regarding your comments on the JA extradition hearing yesterday:
The working assumption of the court from the start is that JA should be extradited. Which means JA has to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubt, all the prosecution have to do is sit back and look for holes in the defence.
The judge wasn't sympathetic to JA and even had him locked up for about 10 days in December.
The defence evidence was put under a microscope by the judge and he found that JA's Swedish lawyers evidence had some error, which undermined his credibility. The judge used this to undermine the evidence of 2 other Swedish defence witnesses.
The judge wasn't prepared to look at anything other than the words written on the EAW to answer the question of whether JA was wanted for questioning or prosecution.
Regarding your support for the fragrant Ms Ny; the fact is she didn't have the guts to come to London to give evidence before the Judge and in fact her written statement for the court was regarded as hearsay and the judge said he would give it little weight, which rather weakens your argument that she was correct on all points.
What you have failed to take into account is that most Swedes, including the eminent Brita Sundberg-Weitman know from common knowledge that Ms Ny is a man hating radical feminist with an extremist political agenda. Unfortunately common knowledge and common sense are often not given much weight in court.
The judge asked a sensible serious questions regarding the criticisms of Ms Ny. I'm afraid "common knowledge" is not the same thing as evidence, and for very good reason.
The judge demanded evidence and none of the critics laid on by JA could provide it. Live with it and think about the implications of this for your own prejudices.
Her critics, as chosen by JA himself, had a prime opportunity to condemn her in the one arena in which their arguments would be rigorously tested. They failed. Of course, this won't stop the hot air being generated on sites such these. But then again, rigorous argument is not a hallmark of this site, unfortunately.
That she didn't turn up is neither here nor there. In fact it should have been easier to discredit her in her absence given that she would have been unable to reply. However, she wasn't discredited. It seems "common knowledge" (aka gossip, innuendo and prejudice) wasn't enough to win the argument. Funny that.
I don't think the answer on whether the alleged abuse against Ms Ny is justified will be settled in an extradition hearing, it has too narrow a remit. Perhaps a civil suit or a Judicial Review against her might get the answer?
A central argument against JA's extradition was Ny's conduct. It wasn't a peripheral thing. The judge cross examined the critics and the evidence was found to be insubstantial. For someone as maligned as Ny it can't have been too hard for JA and his lawyers to have produced some evidence. Or perhaps they're just blowing hot air.
The central arguments were: (1) whether the EAW was for questioning, (2) whether the alleged sex crimes were crimes in the UK.
I'm sure they could have done better if their only target was Ms Ny.
Ny was not peripheral and JA and his lawyers had an excellent opportunity to discredit her with *evidence* (the stuff you guys never seem to produce - conspiracy theorists never do, at least not of the unbiased, non-cherry picked variety). The problem was that they didn't seem to be able to muster any evidence, funny that...
This is what the judge wrote about the critcism of Ny:
"The main criticism comes from the Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman. She does not know Ms Ny. She bases her opinion on what she has been told by this defendant's lawyers and articles she had read in the press. In fact she
produced comparatively little evidence to support her strong criticism of Ms Ny. I refer briefly to that part of her evidence at page 3 above. Moreover she confirmed that she had no direct personal knowledge of what had happened in the investigation. Her evidence is based upon facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. Mr Hurtig denied telling her that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He has never met her. There is therefore no clear evidence as to the source of the information on which Brita Sundberg-Weitman formed her opinion. One probable explanation is that Mr Assange's London lawyers provided her with material they had in turn received from Mr Hurtig. However there are other explanations and the evidence is simply unclear on this point. Mr Alhem expressly made no judgement on Ms Ny. Mr Hurtig clearly does know the prosecutor personally. He has not directly accused her of lying, or of malicious intent, but has strongly criticised her judgement. However, insofar as there were significant differences between his evidence and her evidence on facts known to them both, he conceded in cross-examination that her evidence is substantially correct."
Do you have any evidence for your thesis ?
I enjoyed your comparison of Sweden with East Germany and South Africa though, to ask again, I would like some *evidence*.