Assange Granted Bail - Sweden Appeals - Still No Charges

"Sweden can transfer Assange to the U.S. to stand trail for any U.S. federal criminal charges before he faces charges for sexual offences in Sweden."

This is wrong. Federal charges are not enough for extradition from Sweden to the US (see the treaty below) Actually, the US-UK extradition treaty is much more US-friendly. I'm getting sick hearing about how great UK seems to be in these matters. One more important thing: Using the act you refer to, Sweden must ask UK for permission before they extradite him, because he came from there. Read the laws before you write such wrong things about so important matters.

Swedish prosecuters are treating this case really bad, and I'm ashamed, but the problem in this case are our liberal rape laws, not the system. You make it really easy for yourself if you think this is just a set-up from Swedish authorities. You just can't persuade a prosecuter and two different courts.

I've read all extradition treaties and I can't find one single reason Sweden will or can extradite JA to the US. It would clearly be against both Swedish law and the US-Sweden Extradition Treaty from 1963. In the US-friendly Extradition Treaty between US and UK you can find reasons easily, just comparing the two States law-codes.


US-Sweden Extradition Treaty 1963

ARTICLE II

Extradition shall be granted, subject to the provisions of this Convention, for the following offenses:

(My note: Extradition offences are here limited to 25 notes such as murder, kidnapping, bigami etc, not the law-code in both countries. Note 12 (below) is the closest one but as you can see, Julian Assange is several blocks away from these accusations, as the documents are truly original. And of course nothing about espionage)

12. Forgery, or the utterance of forged papers; the forgery or falsification of official acts of government, of public authorities, or of courts of justice, or the utterance of the thing forged or falsified.


ARTICLE V

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

4. When the offense is purely military.

5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.

(My note: What JA might have done is maybe not clearly juridically political, but it is surely political connected)
_________________

US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003

ARTICLE 2

Extraditable Offenses

1. An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

(My note: Extradition offences are NOT limited to 25 notes such as murder, kidnapping, bigami etc., those we can see in the treaty between US and Sweden. In the US-UK treaty ALL offences under both US and UK laws are extraditable. You have to read the law-code in both countries, and I think you might find a lot of offences Julian Assange might be close to, according to the US, maybe even espionage)

ARTICLE 4

Political and Military Offenses

1. Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.

(My note: Compared to US-Swedish treaty this is really lame. No addition: "an offense connected with a political offense." and you have the hole law-code in both US and UK to find offences made by JA)

As I stated earlier, Sweden can't extradite JA without asking UK for permission. Two countries has to agree, and that's more than one. Time and a lot of juridical processes are his best friends right now.

Thank you, Teena but I have already seen that video. Still, Sweden HAS to ask UK for permission before extradition. And with one of the most liberal freedom of speech and freedom of the press laws in the world an extradition to the US from Sweden is out of question. Compare those treaties and you have clear answers. I will eat my hat if I'm wrong.

Of cource, JA doesn't trust Swedish prosecuters, but the big mistake here is to believe this has anything to do with the leaks of documents.

Recently two conservative parlament members asked in an article the goverment to critisise the US for their hunting of JA, even if they can't discuss the rape case. If they do, they have to leave the Swedish parlament because a politican are absolutely not allowed to interfere with any prosecuter's work.

Please read this – it came out in the Financial Times today…

“Meanwhile, Mr Assange’s UK attorney Mark Stephens said at the weekend that the Swedes had informed his team that the US investigation of WikiLeaks for espionage or other wrongdoing had accelerated. “We have heard from the Swedish authorities that there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria,” he told Al Jazeera interviewer David Frost.

Because Sweden has indicated it would be likely to defer to the US if an indictment was forthcoming and try to extradite him to America, the sex allegations are “nothing more than a holding charge”, Mr Stephens said.”

….this may all be a grand illusion distracting us from the real threat and Assange the patsy who plays perfectly the hero and the villain...

… last time I checked INTERPOL wasn’t in the business of hunting down men who offended women by for not using a condom…

I really hope you don’t have to eat your hat!!! :)

Well, this is a rumour. And talking about rumour. Didn't the hole world think it was Sweden who appealed about bail? I suppose you now know the "truth" about that. UK (CPS) appealed, not Swedish prosecuters. But, in defence for CPS, this is regular procedings in extradition cases. The strange thing is, why did CPS blame Sweden? Maybe you should ask yourself that question.

Back to the rumour about the meeting. Swedish Foreign Minister said earlier there has not been any contacts between the US and Sweden about extradition, because the US-Swedish Extradition Treaty doesn't alllow it. Read it. You can't find one single offence making it possible to extradite him to the US. It will be so many protests about this here if they try to bypass the Treaty. But to know if UK can extradite him, you just have to find an offence similar to both UK and US law-code. Happy reading with those!!

Am I right or am I right?

Lets just see what happens... I hope you are right.

This report from the Independent in the UK suggests the Obama Administration is exploring its options:

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-t rial-in-us-2154107.html

As you probably already know, The Guardian has leaked the details of rape, sexual assault allegations against Wikileaks' Assange

"Also notable, this quote from Wikileaks' coordinator in Stockholm, who knows both Assange and the two women involved:
"This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt." "

Dear Teena, there isn't a chance Sweden will extradite JA to the US, the treaty between US and Sweden is really clear here. The only chance is that the world will support US claims to rate him as a terrorist, but then UK is less safer for him, I think.

The articles you refer to has no substance. Get the picture. These rumours comes from the US authorities, the same people who don't want him to be extradited to Sweden, because they know extradition will be impossible from here.

http://newsone.com/world/newsonestaff4/even-if-u-s-indicts-assange-extrad ition-not-certain/

Now there is a rumour that "Karl Rove is responsible for the Swedish government's unjust persecution against modern-day Cassanova Julian Assange". As if they can interfear with our prosecuters and our courts.

This is getting more and more laughable, Teena, and US authorities are getting more an more desperat, trying to stop an extradition to Sweden. And the defenders of JA (and maybe even JA, himself) swallows the hole bait.

Thank you avid reader for continuing to read my articles and post comments…

In regards to your comment, “Teena, and US authorities are getting more an more desperat, trying to stop an extradition to Sweden.”

Please note I am only reporting the news and in no way trying to stop Julian Assange from extradition to Sweden.

However, I am very flattered that you give this article such weight of influence to charge me with being as desperate as US authorities.

You seem to understand the extraditions laws quite well, and I commend you on all of your research into this matter.

Sorry Teena. You misunderstood me. One sentence was really bad excecuted with one comma to much. This is what I meant:

This is getting more and more laughable, Teena. US authorities are getting more an more desperat, trying to stop an extradition to Sweden. And the defenders of JA (and maybe even JA, himself) swallows the hole bait.