LONDON: Julian Assange took his extradition battle to Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that sending him to Sweden would violate a fundamental principle of natural law.
But it couldn't happen to a more deserving person right now. Well, okay, there are a few imans and hard boyz in Britain who deserve it more, but Assange does indeed deserve it...
The two-day hearing is Assange's last chance to persuade British judges to quash efforts to send him to Scandinavia, where he is wanted on sex crimes allegations.
The case hinges on a single technical point: whether Sweden's public prosecutor can properly issue a warrant for Assange's arrest.
In Britain as in the United States, generally only judges can issue arrest warrants, and British courts only honor warrants issued by what they describe as judicial authorities. Lawyers for Sweden argue that, in Sweden as in other European countries, prosecutors play a judicial or semi-judicial role.
Assange lawyer Dinah Rose rejected that argument Wednesday, telling the seven justices gathered in Britain's highest court that a prosecutor "does not, and indeed cannot as a matter of principle, exercise judicial authority."
She said that wasn't just a parochial British view, but rather a "fundamental principle" that stretches back 1,500 years to the Codex Justinius, the Byzantine legal code.
"No one may be a judge in their own case," Rose said.
Rose spent the first 2 1/2 hours of the hearing combing through British case law and parsing European draft treaties to buttress her case -- in some cases slipping into French to make finer points and wording. She claimed that those who set the rules for European extraditions expected that judicial authorities issuing warrants would be independent and impartial, noting that drafters dropped the reference to public prosecutors from the final version of their text.
Evidence showed, she said, that drafters believed "that the European arrest warrant was a very serious measure that has to be issued by a court."
She spoke confidently and with few interruptions, but legal experts say Rose faces an uphill battle to convince the Supreme Court to block the extradition.
Karen Todner, a prominent extradition specialist, said before the case started that Assange's lawyers were unlikely to overcome the benefit of the doubt usually afforded to other European countries' judicial systems. British judges "absolutely defer" to their European counterparts' justice systems, she said, adding that she would be "very surprised" if Assange's team won the day.
Just over a dozen nuttersfoolsrubesidiotssimpsgoofs sympathizers came to support Assange, a 40-year-old Australian, outside the Supreme Court building Wednesday.
The UK justices, who have dispensed with formal court attire in favor of business suits, will hear lawyers for the prosecution on Thursday. Their decision isn't expected for several weeks.
If they rule against Assange, the 40-year-old Australian is expected to be on a flight to Sweden within two weeks. Assange could conceivably appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, but because Sweden is a fellow European country that would not stop his extradition.
Once in Sweden he would be arrested and a detention hearing would be held within four days. Prosecutors could decide to release him after questioning, but the court could also extend his period of detention. Such hearings must be held every two weeks until a suspect is charged or released. There is no bail in Sweden.
It's still not clear whether charges will be brought against him in Sweden. If Assange is convicted, the penalties for the types of crime he's accused of range from fines to as much as six years in prison.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/02/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Natural Law?
Posted by: Water Modem ||
02/02/2012 1:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Given that the UK can't even extradite known terror leaders because to do so might jeopardize their 'human rights' in their home countries, it's pretty damned likely Assange will live a comfortable life in Britain.
#4
He sounds tense. While in London, he should visit the John F. Kennedy Memorial built at Runnymede, on one acre of land that is legally US territory.
While there, he can be greeted by several grinning U.S. Marshals.
[Dawn] Four British men fueled by the words of a US-born Mohammedanholy man pleaded guilty Wednesday to involvement in an al-Qaeda inspired plot to spread terror and cause economic damage by bombing the London Stock Exchange at Christmastime.
Five other defendants pleaded guilty to lesser terrorism charges.
The nine men, from several parts of the country, were brought together through radical groups and nurtured plans to attack the stock exchange and other high-profile targets. Unbeknownst to them, British authorities learned of the plot and put them under surveillance.
They were tossed in the slammer in raids in December 2010 and all initially denied the charges against them.
But on Wednesday, as their trial was due to start, four of the defendants pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to involvement in the Stock Exchange plan, and the five others to preparing or assisting planned terror attacks.
Mohammed Chowdhury, 21; Shah Rahman, 28; Gurukanth Desai, 30; and Abdul Miah, 25, all admitted preparing for acts of terrorism by planning to plant an improvised bomb in the toilets of the London Stock Exchange.
Prosecution lawyer Andrew Edis accepted that the men had not planned to kill anyone.
"Their intention was to cause terror and economic harm and disruption," he said. "But their chosen method meant there was a risk people would be maimed or killed."
Chowdhury, from London, was described by prosecutors as the "lynchpin" of the plot. His lawyer, Christopher Blaxland, said Chowdhury admitted planning to plant the bomb, "with the obvious attendant risk but without any intention to cause death or even injury but with the intention to terrorize, damage property and to cause economic damage."
The other five defendants admitted attending planning meetings, fundraising for terrorism or possessing copies of the al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, which contained a feature headlined "Make A Bomb In The Kitchen Of Your Mom."
Prosecutors said they had not made any bombs or set dates for the attacks.
They said the men were not members of al-Qaeda but had been inspired by the terror network and the sermons of its Yemen-based, American-born holy manAnwar al-Awlaki ... Born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, zapped in Yemen, al-Awlaki was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen. He was an Islamic holy man who was a trainer for al-Qaeda and its franchises. His sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers, by Fort Hood murderer Nidal Malik Hussein, and Undieboomer Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He was the first U.S. citizen ever placed on a CIA target list... , who was killed last year in a US drone strike.
Edis said the nine defendants "were implementing the published strategy of AQAP" _ al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The suspects, then aged between 20 and 30, were tossed in the slammer in London, Cardiff and Stoke-on-Trent in central England, in what police called the biggest anti-terror raid for two years.
Prosecutors said they plotted to send mail bombs to various targets in the run-up to Christmas 2010 and had discussed launching a "Mumbai-style" atrocity _ referring to the kabooms that killed 166 people in India's financial center in 2008.
The nine defendants were accused of agreeing on targets, discussing materials and methods, and researching files "containing practical instruction for a terrorist attack."
The men held planning meetings, researched bomb-making and scouted out locations including Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the London Eye Ferris wheel _ not knowing that they were under police surveillance and their homes and cars had been bugged.
A handwritten target list found at one of the defendant's homes listed the names and addresses of London Mayor Boris Johnson, two rabbis, the American Embassy and the Stock Exchange.
The men, who had Bangladeshi and Pak backgrounds, also were overheard discussing how to make a pipe bomb, and talked about traveling abroad for terror training.
The four suspects from Stoke-on-Trent discussed leaving homemade bombs in the toilets of their city's pubs _ but noted that as Mohammedans they would not be able to go into the pubs to plant them.
The defendants will be sentenced next week, but the judge has already told Chowdhury he will receive 13 1/2 years and Rahman 12 years. Each will also receive five years on probation. They are likely to serve half that time before being eligible for parole.
When police swooped on the suspects in three cities in the early morning of Dec. 20, 2010, they said it was the most significant anti-terror raid for two years.
London has been targeted several times by violent Islamists affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaeda.
In July 2005, four jacket wallahs killed 52 commuters on three London subway trains and a bus. A year later, US and British intelligence officials thwarted one of the largest plots yet _ a plan to explode bombs on nearly a dozen trans-Atlantic airliners.
Al-Awlaki, who was killed in September, is thought to have orchestrated an unsuccessful October 2010 plot to send mail bombs on planes from Yemen to the US hidden in the toner cartridges of computer printers.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
LONDON: Julian Assange took his extradition battle to Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that sending him to Sweden would violate a fundamental principle of natural law.
[Dawn] Four British men fueled by the words of a US-born 
