I see our esteemed legal system has all but handed over Assange to Sweden on the dubious strength of a [iFrench interpretation[/i of an English word. And surprise, surprise Hilary Clinton has out-of-the-blue announced she will be visiting Sweden in the coming weeks.

With rumours of a secret indictment circulating in the US it looks like Mr. Wikileaks is doomed unless his appeal is successful within the next 14 days.

I must say the utter spinelessness of our politicians is staggering. So far I've written three letters querying our treatment of Assange (two to my MP and one to man directly responsible prosecutions of this nature) and all of them have been met with Sphinx-like apathy. [iIt's-all-in-the-hands-of-people-who-know-better-so-shut-up-and-don't-worry blah blah blah.[/i

Assange must feel like one of those infamous characters from the past such as Captain Kidd or Jugurtha who thought they could take liberties with the hegemon of the day and then, to their horror, saw the slow but certain force of power emerge like some lumbering beast from the Cretaceous and snap its colossal jaws shut.

Isn't the problem that we don't seem to have the autonomous powers to reject the European arrest warrants, no matter how spurious.

I know very little about the case but can I just ask whats the problem with him going to Sweden? It's hardly a country without a legal system.

From what I have seen, it seems to be fears he will get extradited to Uncle Sam easier from Sweden, some believe its a done deal.

Easier that our extradition treaty? I doubt that.

indeed, what possible reason has the UK got for not sending him for a trial in Sweden? If he is guilty of rape in Sweden, he should be dealt with by the Swedes - it has nothing to do with the UK.

He's not been charged.

So is this a unusual act, for a person to be extradited do they need to be charged?

They should just send him direct to the US. What good does the kind of information he leaked do anyone? There are certain aspects of the truth that people just don't need to know. Releasing classified war material about campaigns that are still ongoing is completely unacceptable, irrespective of whether there are moral horrors being committed. He's undoubtedly broken several thousand laws across the world so I don't see why we should protect him from Uncle Sam.

Have the US requested his extradition from Britain ?

You might want to be kept in the dark about what is being done in your name, with your money, but some of us do not.

And as for: "irrespective of whether there are moral horrors being committed" ... Wow. Just wow.

We cannot just have carte blanche on all information, just because some people think they have the right to know. If leaking information puts lives at risk then the 'leaker' should be prosecuted and jailed if found guilty, but if it's just embarrassing to whoever wants it kept secret, then go for it, leak away. TBH, I don't know enough about what he has leaked and have never visited his website and am just making comments in the general area of leaking info.

The interesting thing here is publishing secret information in the US is NOT a crime.

They leaked masses of stuff. I remember, for instance, US diplomatic emails where someone was calling for the US government to launch 'economic war' against Europe because the continent is opposed to letting Monsanto use its GM stuff over here.

Justified in my opinion, clearly about an organisations financial gain. and no respect for another group of nations to act on its own laws.

Oddly enough, I am sat at home this very minute doing one of my companies online course, this one being Information Security Essentials and the acronym being used a lot is CIA, which in this case stands for Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability.

And if its of the same calibre as the example you gave, great. Not so sure about the leaking of classified stuff that could lead to loss of life etc. but of course that's the "sexy" stuff that Wikileaks made their name from. In general I don't have a problem with the principle.

Not a fan of Assange though. Like I say, if his website is leaking useful stuff, OK, but "Wikileaks" is publishing, not "Julian Assange plc". He's become a massive self publicist imo. The sort of person Wikileaks should be leaking stuff about.

If he has committed an offence it must be dealt with but it will be interesting to see where it leads if he does go to Sweden.

Agreed. I think he's become a bit of a martyr for geeks, frankly.



I think the Swedish judicial system is pretty fair. It's not as though we're allowing his extradition to, say, Saudi Arabia.

Whether it is unusual or not is completely irrelevant. Handing someone over to another country without charge is not the kind of justice we should readily associate with.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out it only takes some trumped up reason or another to result in you being spirited away to some country where you are out-of-sight and perhaps more likely to be extradited to the non-EU nation whose political machinations are the real driving force behind events.

You mean the one recently described by Glenn Greenwald as "barbaric"?

Like I say I know little about the case, just thought i'd ask what was going on.

who?

I was reluctant to say 'who'. I though I 'should' have known who he is.

Glenn Greenwald is an American lawyer, civil rights activist and constitutional expert.

So is the implication here the courts looked for any possible way to extradite him which would imply political pressure was behind the judgement?

What he thinks is 'barbaric' is detention on remand.

Perhaps he should look at his home country's judicial system first.