British District Judge Howard Riddle appears to be having second thoughts about his announcement yesterday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would be denied bail purely on the basis that he had the theoretical ability to leave the country “if he wants to.”
Now Riddle is said to be planning to give Assange a second chance at bail next week, and gave the lawyer representing the Swedish government something of a shock when he insisted that they actually have to produce some sort of evidence against Assange.
The lawyer, Gemma Lindfield, had insisted that evidence was “not relevant” to the effort to send Assange to Sweden to face charges. A number of British officials are said to be concerned that when Assange is sent to Sweden he will end up in US government possession and simply “disappear.”
And sources say that a number of other magistrates were irked by Riddle’s previous position, saying they believed he was buckling to US pressure to silence WikiLeaks in accepting his detention without bail or evidence on totally non-WikiLeaks related allegations. His sudden interest in actually hearing about some sort of case suggests that robe isn’t just for show, and Assange’s transfer won’t be a straightforward rubber stamping of the Swedish government’s efforts.
"A number of British officials are said to be concerned that when Assange is sent to Sweden he will end up in US government possession and simply “disappear.”"
Take a bow antiwar.com! By tirelessly publicizing what the empire has been doing for all these you (and others) have created an awareness even in Britain that the US govt. cannot be trusted to adhere to the ule of law. Shining the light of publicity on US govt. doings has planted a seed of doubt in the minds of the European public who used to accept uncritically that the US govt. was the good guys.
The more the government persecutes and tramples human rights the closer we are to freedom from the empire.
A little late. isn't it?
Should the judge not have considered this prior to denying bail?
And as for sweden to not have evidence,.. well…..why would you need evidence?
You should always take a government's word on any issue. Governments don't lie, do they now?
What an asshat world we now live in. I wonder what George Orwell would have had to say about the current world we now live in.
I'm gonna venture that, in this particular case, he'd say something like this:
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of he Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." – From 1984
Wow, actual evidence? No way. Golly, Judge Riddle might be setting some manner of legal precedent by examining evidence. Gosh and what a novel concept. Evidence…go figure.
It is really not wise to turn the suspect to Sweden. Not only that Swedish law has some impediments to extradition, but the cables revealing the "assessment" of Swedish Foreign Minister Karl Bildt — have complicated things. The cables reveal that his US counterparts though very little of him. He was called "a medium size dog" who thinks he is "big". Various other perjoratives were heaped on him, including his lack of political skills. It is sadly clear that the writers of such gems think perhaps too highly of themselves, to notice other people's qualities or have any appreciation for differences in temper and communications style. With the potentially uncooperative Sweden, it can be counted on Britain not to ask too many questions on extradition. On the other hand, the cangaroo court anywhere on earth for someone so universaly known, may prove to be a sticky wicket.
I'd love to see that Swedish prosecutor produce the broken condom in question. ROFL!
lol wow!
That would just be one more amazing leak.
lol..very interesting.. I am sure that wh..e flushed in the toilet.
Hey, don't bet on that. Monika Lewinski kept her dress with the "stain" in question on it.
Being a Swede myself, I must mention this:
Actually it can be good for JA to be sent to Sweden, because this sexual abuse case has first priority over any extradition claims from the US. Also, before Sweden can extradite, a Swedish court not only has to approve the US claims, they also has to ask UK authorities for permission, because he came from there. This means that two countries have to approve.
If the Swedish case is dropped, and JA is a free man, Sweden has to wait 2 weeks before they don’t have to ask UK for permission. This case might actually be a good insurance for JA.
If he still is in Sweden, 2 weeks after acquittal or served time, both a Swedish court (which he of course can appeal to higher court), and the Swedish gouverment has to approve the US claims. They can actually change the court’s decision, and in the name of humanity deside to not extradite him. But, and this is important, the gouverment can’t change the court’s decision the other way around.
Ladies and Gentlemen, these all issues and claims will take over 18 months. Time and many juridically processes are JA's best friends right now.
Isn't it against Swedish law to 'extradite' a prisoner to a country where he is likely to be tortured and murdered? Considering the track record of the Bush-Obama regime, it's hard to believe that Assange wouldn't be subject to all sorts of torture 'techniques' once the torturers get their hands on him – all for peace of course!