You mean, the guy fighting Bradley Manning's corner and one of America's most vociferous campaigners for constitutional and legal reform?

I mean that claiming that remand is "barbaric" is crass. It is a stupid, crass comment.

His own country murders innocent people in the name of justice: if remand is "barbaric", I can't imagine how he'd find the appropriate hyperbole for that.

It's worth noting that Wikileaks recently published e-mails by the private intelligence gathering Stratfor group (a sort of "shadow" CIA with all kinds of murky links to arms manufacturers, oil companies etc.) claiming a sealed indictment has been drawn up against Assange. This effectively means that once the US gets its hands on him he'll be thrown in some hole somewhere and never seen again.

I should point out that Strafor is dirty as well as unconstitutional. By farming out intelligence work to private companies the US effectively bypasses due process. And it's getting worse. Obama has clamped down on leaks like no other President threatening all kinds of horrors to anyone not toeing the line. Convictions have skyrocketed and civil rights activists everywhere are blowing their stacks.

British laws are incredibly difficult even for the US to crack. There are all kinds of legal protections to prevent miscarriages of justice and an army of top lawyers who are prepared to fight civil rights abuses purely on conscience.

But Sweden is an altogether different proposition. Extradition to the US is far easier and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be wielding all the power she can muster to expedite Assange's transfer once we kick him out.

It's tragic really. After all, despite the US's protestations there's no evidence that any of Wikileaks' publications (which are no different to leaks newspapers publish around the world each and every day ) have resulted in anything more than political embarrassment. But I guess that's dangerous enough.

INDEFINITE remand (which is what he's facing) without charge IS barbaric. Christ, even Winston "Let's gas those pesky Arabs" Churchill baulked at such you daft clot!

And how many cases in Sweden see someone held without charge for indefinite times?

Don't they jail some categories at weekends only for things that would get you 20 to life in the states.

I must admit, I have always believed Sweden to be 'lenient' on its criminals, was I wrong.

OK lets assume this is the US master-plan. I read about why he has another 14 days to appeal. A supreme court screw up basing a judgement on something not tested in open court that was spotted by his QC in a 117 page document first seen by her at 08:30 and she was in court at 09:15.



But once that is dealt with is there anything to suggest our incredibly difficult to crack British laws are going to be abused to get him extradited?

It all seems to hinge on a European arrest warrant being issued by a Swedish prosecutor and if the prosecutor is a suitable person to issue it.

Is there anything to suggest our courts are bending the rules to say he is OK to issue it?

And this is relevant to Julian Assange's treatment in what way?

Born in Australia, lived there until he finished his studies.

Has lived in Iceland, Kenya, France, Germany, Tanzania and Egypt.

From what I see his only connection to Britain is a period of free lodgings in Norfolk, so why are we getting all this involved with him, shove him on a plane back to Aussie and let them deal with it.

The decision was passed 5 in favour and 2 against. Two of the five in favour subsequently stated that they would have voted the other way had they known Assange's arrest warrant had not been issued by a court or a judge. The issue here is not the integrity of those passing judgement - it's the parameters they were ordered to work within passed down by government.

Maybe to show that they have a fair system of justice and not one like Rwanda, like some of his supporters would like us to believe.

From what I read that issue wasn't why he has another 14 days to appeal. It is because his QC spotted that some of the judges based their ruling on something that had not been tested in open court. Not the specifics of what that thing was (can't remember if this was who issued the warrant or not).

However why didn't the judges know who issued the warrant?

Why didn't his QC tell them as part of her defence if this is so significant?

I also thought just because on the face of it someone like a Swedish prosecutor isn't mentioned in the treaty that came up with the European arrest warrant as someone who can issue the warrant the judges can rule it was clearly intended to include such people anyway.

I didn't say it was. The objections of those involved were completely separate.

Why do defenders of Assange somehow choose to downplay or even ignore the possibility that Assange may have actually committed crimes in Sweden, which he'd also be in trouble for in the UK? You know, ones involving victims? Surely that's the first issue to be sorted out.

You mentioned earlier that some of the judges would have voted differently if they had been aware of certain fact(s)?

If so and assuming they are now aware, is it now just a formality he will win the appeal?

What, you mean St Julian could just possibly be mounting every kind of legal defence and conspiracy theory to take attention away from the fact that he may have, just possibly, actually broken the law and committed a crime for which he should be tried? nah, that will never fly with the bleeding hearts brigade.

I am more interested in the process than the alleged crimes. I want to know if he is extradited it is not down to anything shady or underhand.

If due process is followed and he is extradited fairly I don't have a problem with that.