Assange loses U.K. extradition appeal

After spending a year and a half under house arrest in England, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, lost his fight to avoid extradition to Sweden to face accusations of rape. The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Sweden's European Arrest Warrant for Assange was valid and "lawfully made," reports BBC News.

Assange and his lawyer, Dinah Rose, now have 14 days to make one last appeal, which the justices will consider to re-open the appeal. If the final appeal fails and Assange is eventually extradited, he will face a full trial in Sweden, where he is accused of raping one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another woman in Stockholm in August 2010.

A majority of five justices to two ruled against Assange, according to Lord Nicholas Phillips, the court's president. Phillips said the judgment "was not an easy decision to make." The two dissenters were Lord Mance and Lady Hale, who sided with Assange about the validity of the warrant.

Assange turned himself in to British authorities back in December of 2010, and has been under house arrest and subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of his fight against the Swedish extradition. He was not present at the 10-minute judgment Wednesday, as he was reportedly stuck in heavy traffic on the way to court.

The U.K. Supreme Court's full decision can be viewed online (384 KB PDF document).

Source: BBC News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Heroes of Three Kingdoms review: not Dynasty Warriors

Next Story

Amazon to start collecting sales taxes in New Jersey in 2013

25 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So a lot of things have been said, all of them wrong or misleading because all you read is BBC.

1) There are 320,000,000 people living in America proper in England there's 50,000,000 that's a LOT less.

2) Britain proper has more incidences of violent crime and racial violence than America - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

3) Al-Jazeera broadcasts insightful discussions such as "The west is losing the war against terrorism because they're weak and don't love allah" if that's what you want to watch on the tele, go for it.

4) People are free to be racists of course - but should they be prevented from using public transport? I mean seriously now what if that lady gets drunk again and decides to drive in her car and wrecks it out on the road killing people because some lefty nutcase thought that racism deserved her a ban from public transport? Seriously are you truly that thick or do you practice at it?

5) Harassment as a form of assault - you're a nancy boy, please grow some stones...

I'm a British transplant living in America since 2006 I wouldn't live anywhere else except maybe Canada. You can keep your inbred royals IMHO

Oh and FYI - Britain has more violent attacks that result in NO DEATH than any other European country in the world including South Africa (if you'll have it). Also, racism and bigotry are also starkly on the rise, must be all that good natured nanny state crap you watch on BBC telling you to not be like the dreadful yanks and their islmaphobia huh? Enjoy Al-Jazeera boys cheers to mungers, the gypers and the Arabs, you can have em' and not fear em' till they steal your crap and your life.

Wikileaks is a scam, they launched a, self-called, important leaks. However, all the information leaked was useless, outdated or irrelevant.

I agree Americans really are sheep.

They should:

Let the government take away their right to bear arms
Let the government monopolize ALL forms of television news except for Sky (but who watches that)
Let the government ban their citizens from taking public transportation for racism
Watch them 24/7 via CCTV on every flipping street and corner and lorry in the world

No I agree, American's ...heinous human rights eating country where people are arrested merely on "suspicion of crime" so that the copper can keep his job for the week no totally awful country. God the queen and all that.

Next time Ze Germans are banging on the door burning half of London, tell Americans right to their faces "**** off you! I'll have none of you porky pies you lying crooked jerks!"

pzykotic said,
I agree Americans really are sheep.

They should:

Let the government take away their right to bear arms
Let the government monopolize ALL forms of television news except for Sky (but who watches that)
Let the government ban their citizens from taking public transportation for racism
Watch them 24/7 via CCTV on every flipping street and corner and lorry in the world

No I agree, American's ...heinous human rights eating country where people are arrested merely on "suspicion of crime" so that the copper can keep his job for the week no totally awful country. God the queen and all that.

Next time Ze Germans are banging on the door burning half of London, tell Americans right to their faces "**** off you! I'll have none of you porky pies you lying crooked jerks!"


*.... the majority of American's really are sheep.

Corrected.

1) Firearms deaths in the US are one of the highest in the world. They kill more people that they protect.
2) The BBC is not a monopoly, nor is Sky the only news source. In the UK we receive Al Jazeera, which is banned in most US states because of mass censorship.
3) People are free to be racists - just like most Americans - but not to subject other to harassment, which is a form of assault.
4) CCTV is prevalent everywhere but most of it - like in the US - is deployed by private companies that have no direct connection to the government or obligation to hand it over.

As for Americans being sheep, they are. Just look at food scandals - the "pink slime" scandal, the lack of any restrictions on GM crops (labelling, etc), the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle (banned in Europe). Just look at the way people are jailed for minor drug offences, yet those that steal billions and commit fraud are left alone and receive millions in bonuses. Just look at the appalling for-profit health system in the US. Just look at the appalling for-profit education system. Just look at the appalling for profit prison system. Just look at the amount spent on the military and the number of countries invaded for the profit of private companies - cutting the military budget by 75% would still put it above every other country in the world. Just look at the number of people shot and killed by the police, like the unarmed "bath salts" man.

At least the Germans were open about what they were doing. The US just uses money and backdoor politics to manipulate countries to do their bidding. Just look at the war on drugs in Mexico - demanded by the US it has turned the country into a war zone, increased drug usage, increased crime and killed over 55,000 people in just 6yrs. Whereas the countries that have stood up to the US and decriminalise drugs - like Portugal - have seen drug usage fall and the number of people in drug treatment increase.

If it's a choice between Germany and the US most people in Europe would rather take Germany. Thanks anyway though.

All this freedom to know everything nonsense. He puts peoples lives at risk with his revelations. I say let him first sweat it out a bit in Sweden and hopefully the Swedish government extradites him to the US! Good riddance I say.
This of course constitutes my personal biased opinion.

Erikas said,
All this freedom to know everything nonsense. He puts peoples lives at risk with his revelations. I say let him first sweat it out a bit in Sweden and hopefully the Swedish government extradites him to the US! Good riddance I say.
This of course constitutes my personal biased opinion.
I thought it constituted the view of the lamestream media

Erikas said,
All this freedom to know everything nonsense. He puts peoples lives at risk with his revelations. I say let him first sweat it out a bit in Sweden and hopefully the Swedish government extradites him to the US! Good riddance I say.
This of course constitutes my personal biased opinion.

Do you have evidence of a single person that has been hurt by the information they leaked? Diplomatic cables are little more than a bunch of dirty secrets from a variety of politicians, and the military information that was leaked was really old.

He exposed your government's lies and dirty secrets. That's the only reason that you hate him.

Javik said,

Do you have evidence of a single person that has been hurt by the information they leaked? Diplomatic cables are little more than a bunch of dirty secrets from a variety of politicians, and the military information that was leaked was really old.

He exposed your government's lies and dirty secrets. That's the only reason that you hate him.

So, we must wait for someone to be hurt before deciding something is bad. Correct?

His mentality was to release information with complete disregard for it's repercussions and people's lives. IF he had information that could have got many soldiers killed - he would release it because of his passionate disdain for the government. America's in particular. He doesn't care that a soldier is just doing their job because if they don't they end up in prison with a DD from the military and their family gets nothing but shame and loss of income.

I'm all for exposing government lies and corruption. God knows America is the worst offender. You don't do it without regard for the innocent in the situation. Assange doesn't care about the innocent.

SharpGreen said,
Good. Glad he lost.

Glad about what? He did what others should done and stood up against our so called governments, the government is suppose to be we the people not a certain group of people.

shadodemon said,

Glad about what? He did what others should done and stood up against our so called governments, the government is suppose to be we the people not a certain group of people.

Yes others should allegedly rape and molest to stick it to the man!

Fred 69 said,

Yes others should allegedly rape and molest to stick it to the man!

The offence that he's being accused of (and I'm saying accused, you do realise that in civilised countries a man's innocent until proven guilty right?) barely even constitutes rape, they call it "surprise sex". He's essentially being accused of tricking a woman into having sex without a condom.

And let's just face it, he exposed a lot of America's embarrassing and dirty secrets. To learn that "the greatest country in the world" perhaps isn't so great is going to hurt a lot of poor little patriots.

Javik said,

The offence that he's being accused of (and I'm saying accused, you do realise that in civilised countries a man's innocent until proven guilty right?) barely even constitutes rape, they call it "surprise sex". He's essentially being accused of tricking a woman into having sex without a condom.

And let's just face it, he exposed a lot of America's embarrassing and dirty secrets. To learn that "the greatest country in the world" perhaps isn't so great is going to hurt a lot of poor little patriots.


Rape's rape, man. Let's not try and downplay what he's accused of (and I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent here, just commenting on the part of the accusations you brought up). If you tell a woman you're going to use a condom, that's part of the consenting process. She consented to sex with a condom, not to have sex without protection.

"Barely constitutes rape" is an alarming standard to be setting. Is there a "barely murdered" standard, or "barely molested a child" standard?

Javik said,

The offence that he's being accused of (and I'm saying accused, you do realise that in civilised countries a man's innocent until proven guilty right?) barely even constitutes rape, they call it "surprise sex". He's essentially being accused of tricking a woman into having sex without a condom.

And let's just face it, he exposed a lot of America's embarrassing and dirty secrets. To learn that "the greatest country in the world" perhaps isn't so great is going to hurt a lot of poor little patriots.

Yes. By definition the word I used, allegation, is an accusation with little or no proof.
Where does it say he isn't being accused of rape? The document released about the extradition appeal loss says he is being accused of molesting one woman and raping another.

Also, I should note I'm not in disagreement with WikiLeaks' actions. This has nothing to do with that.

Anthony Tosie said,

Rape's rape, man. Let's not try and downplay what he's accused of (and I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent here, just commenting on the part of the accusations you brought up). If you tell a woman you're going to use a condom, that's part of the consenting process. She consented to sex with a condom, not to have sex without protection.

"Barely constitutes rape" is an alarming standard to be setting. Is there a "barely murdered" standard, or "barely molested a child" standard?


...read the link, if someone raped me, i am not going to go out the next day and throw them a party, or have them stay with me for 2 weeks.

Anthony Tosie said,

Rape's rape, man....

That logic sounds superficially sensible, but is completely idiotic. Are you saying a 15 year old girl who having sex with a 16 y/o boy is an equal crime to a child being violently sexually assaulted by an adult?

They are both technically rape, yet one is regarded fairly normal and no one really cares about, the other is one of the most extreme crimes someone can commit.

I suggest you retract your dangerously stupid logic.

jorel009 said,


...read the link, if someone raped me, i am not going to go out the next day and throw them a party, or have them stay with me for 2 weeks.


That's an easier statement to make when you weren't in her position, if she was indeed raped. Rape victims routinely don't report their rape out of shame (and not wanting to be victim blamed as you're doing), routinely stay with a significant other that raped them, routinely do lots of things that don't necessarily make sense in the aftermath of a rape.

Anthony Tosie said,

Rape's rape, man. Let's not try and downplay what he's accused of (and I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent here, just commenting on the part of the accusations you brought up). If you tell a woman you're going to use a condom, that's part of the consenting process. She consented to sex with a condom, not to have sex without protection.

"Barely constitutes rape" is an alarming standard to be setting. Is there a "barely murdered" standard, or "barely molested a child" standard?

And you seriously believe that a woman wouldn't notice the difference between him wearing a condom and not? She'd either have to be high as a kite or drunk off her ass to not realise, and there's no indication that she was intoxicated or under the influence.

Martin5000 said,

That logic sounds superficially sensible, but is completely idiotic. Are you saying a 15 year old girl who having sex with a 16 y/o boy is an equal crime to a child being violently sexually assaulted by an adult?

They are both technically rape, yet one is regarded fairly normal and no one really cares about, the other is one of the most extreme crimes someone can commit.

I suggest you retract your dangerously stupid logic.

Actually one is called statutory rape. So yes there is a difference - a huge difference. On top of that, a 15 and 16 yr. old having sex doesn't fall under that law. In most states the law has age of consent limitations that govern those sort of acts. So while sex with anyone under 18 is sort of illegal, the person isn't charged until the parent or minor complains. Then consent has to be determined. In a lot of states the age difference limitation is no younger than 16 and no older than 24.

Of course when you get in to trickery during sex we begin a whole different chapter in the law books. See, trickery is considered 100% rape. Not violent rape but still rape. If you "Houdini" a girl guess what? She didn't agree to the other man and since you knowingly participated in the act you are just as guilty as the other guy in the commission of an act of rape. Since it wasn't a brutal rape there are no charges of felonious assault and battery, attempted murder, deadly weapons charges, and other various charges compounding the sentence. Thus time served will be less (though you should still be shot on sight IMO).

A bit of research prior to posting prevents embarrassment later. Unless of course you're not in America, then my point is null since your laws are different.

Edited by KCRic, May 31 2012, 3:14pm :

Javik said,

And you seriously believe that a woman wouldn't notice the difference between him wearing a condom and not? She'd either have to be high as a kite or drunk off her ass to not realise, and there's no indication that she was intoxicated or under the influence.


I believe her argument was that he woke her up to find him having sex with her. She said stop at first, but later relented under the condition that he wear a condom. If she was just asleep, no, it's not at all surprising. As previously stated, this is only one of the claims against Assange. Someone else posted a list of the full allegations against him above.

Is anyone in the slightest bit surprised by this? There's no chance our "buddies" in the US government weren't putting pressure on us to get this extradition carried out, and as usual our government lacked the backbone to do anything but say "how high". And yes, I realise the crime was committed in Sweden but let's face it he'll end up in American hands soon enough.

Indeed. It's bizarre how the US government was able to turn the people against Assange and Manning when they were only exposing the gross misconduct of the US in foreign policy matters. These charges were dropped the first time around - due to a lack of evidence - yet as soon as the US got involved and it became a political matter another prosecutor in another district took over and suddenly it became a high priority case. There isn't even any dispute that both encounters were consensual but the dispute is they became non-consensual. He even offered a reasonable request to be questioned in the UK but they wanted it to take place in Sweden, undoubtedly so that he could be extradited to the US.

The entire matter is a farce but anything involving US politics inevitably is.