The secret trial process is presumably one that gives protection to the privacy of victims of sexual assault. Sweden has its own legal system, if you happen to go to Sweden you have to abide by it - if Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding sex then he shouldn't have had sex in Sweden.
Excuse me, but that's a remarkably ignorant comment. What you are actually saying is "If Mr Assange doesn't like Sweden's laws regarding rape then he shouldn't have committed rape in Sweden". Because he wasn't accused of having sex in Sweden (that is not in any doubt), rather the questioning is in regards to an alleged rape.
You have no proof that he committed (or did not commit) rape in Sweden.
Anyway - the point is that Sweden takes the rights of alleged rape victims seriously. Hence why trials have privacy attached and interviewing someone remotely isn't up to scratch. If you don't like that Sweden has the balance of rights over sexual issues lying more on the woman's side than elsewhere in the world then perhaps you shouldn't have sex whilst you're in freedom.
I have no proof he committed rape in Sweden. I have an awful lot of evidence that he isn't rushing to clear his name in Sweden...
You should open your eyes to the fact that the law system here is certainly not perfect, and that a lot of the people in people in power do not have to answer enough for there actions.
The treaty was controversial in part because it did lower the evidentiary standard required to extradite to the US (in other words, it did make it easier to extradite to the US). What the controversy didn't recognize was that the former treaty had been unbalanced.
A legitimate concern though is about forum and jurisdiction. The treaty currently allows the US to request extradition for acts committed in the UK that are not a crime in the UK, but there is no corresponding entitlement for the UK to make such request to the US. Many people in the UK feel this is an encroachment on UK sovereignty, and not something that the US would itself offer to another country.
(‡ shame it had to be rounded down, rather than up)
Clearly Roman Polanski also believed Sweden less likely to extradite him than the UK, since he has actually visited the former (where they did arrest him, but then released him without charge back to France).
Personally, I don't care overly much, as I care more about wikileaks than about Assange. However, I realise that many people will not be able to separate the two.
This story ( http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/01/assange-goes-off-dee... ) - I read the original print copy, is what convinced me Assange at least seems to be becoming unstable (perhaps understandable), as I generally trust Private Eye (which is a British political magazine).
He will live in a cell the size of a bathroom for the rest of his life and face possible torture.
While we shop at the mall he did something incredible brave.
edited to address comment below - I know what you're saying, and those people absolutely sacrificed...but that's what Veteran's Day is for, as I understand it.
What about someone who was told by recruiters they would not have to kill anyone and went in as a photographer but their airport was overrun and got severe mental trauma because they had to kill people at point-blank range? Do they deserve to be included?
The dead don't suffer, it's the living scarifies that do.
Let's stop war by making draft mandatory. They we can all have a real memorial day instead of BBQ.
Yes I know we have Veterans Day but it seems kinda stupid to have just one day if we supposedly value such sacrifice.
This topic tends to cause people with no knowledge or experience of the English legal system to come out with some crazy stuff.
Firstly, judgements in England are typically delivered orally. The ten minutes refers to the time taken to read out the judgement in open court, not the time taken to deliberate.
Secondly, and this is a very important point that people here tend to forget, this has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.
Here are the facts: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) for Assange, and want him to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. As a member of the EU, the UK is obliged to transfer him to Sweden, as per the conditions of the warrant. The EAW is very useful, and makes a lot of sense: EU citizens can move and live between EU member states freely, and the EAW is an extension of that.
It is not of relevance to the English courts whether Assange is guilty or not: that's for the Swedish courts to ascertain. It is widely accepted amongst legal circles that Assange's defence is very weak. His defence team are trying to get him off on a technicality - the treaty that governs EU arrest warrants states that requests must be made by "competent judicial authorities", and they're arguing that the Swedish prosecutor isn't a "judicial" official.
That's it. That's all they have. Not honouring the EAW would have huge implications for extradition cases across Europe. I think it's quite likely Assange will be handed over to Sweden, but not because of some vendata or conspiracy - simply because he has no case with regards to his extradition. Assange could very well be totally innocent, but that's a matter he should argue in Sweden where the alleged offence was committed, not the UK.
a) judgement will be given 1 hour after the court building so thats still not much time .
Here are the facts:
Sweden is trying to extradite him for the purpose of questioning, but they have refused all offers to question him via telephone or video call, despite it being a completely legal method under Swedish law.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's lawyer tells CBS News that rape and sexual molestation allegations against his client in Sweden are a "stitch up," and the Swedish prosecutor's failure to provide him with documentation on the claims, or any evidence, makes it impossible to begin crafting a legal response.
Call it what you want, I call it Bullst
If charged, the following trial would be held in secret.
I don't really like it either, but there's a rationale for rape trials to be secret. One of the biggest reasons rape victims don't press charges is because they don't want to face the enormous public scrutiny into their personal lives that always comes with a rape trial. At least in America, the most common legal defense against rape is to attack the victim's credibility and publicly brand her a slut. It's emotional blackmail but it works, which is why most rapes go completely unreported and why Kobe Bryant, for instance, is still a free man.
If Assange was going to be framed by the authorities, it wouldn't be in Sweden of all places, and it would be for something like tax evasion, not rape. It's way easier to go after troublesome public figures on tax charges.
From what I've read, he's not facing treatment any different from anyone else in this situation( and ).
It all appears to be by the book. This is not a railroading, as there have been much back and forth and waffling by the Swedish authorities whether there was a crime and whether to continue the investigation.
I think people see a conspiracy where there is none.