Assange Extradition

Experts quoted by British media are convinced Julian Assange will be extradited to Sweden in a dubious sexual assault case. Normally this paragraph would have said to face charges, but none have been filed.

After several appeals of a lower court decision to grant extradition failed the case went before the U.K. Supreme Court on Wednesday. The hearing is scheduled to be completed after two days.

A decision would be released later, though no time has been set.

Assange could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if he loses.

The British experts quoted by the Guardian and others say to not extradite Assange would bring down the entire European justice system. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/23/julian-assange-extradition-law

And well it might, but not necessarily for the reason they give. Most countries around the world have set up restrictions on extradition to prevent a political refugee from being dragged back to a dictatorship that will harm him, and deny a fair trial.

 An extradition of Assange could result in a disastrous precedent  for the European Union by making it possible for extradition requests without the approval of anyone outside the prosecutor’s office.

The process of extradition varies from country to country but a judge usually must approve, or even a high-ranking executive such as a state governor in the U.S.  For instance, A prosecutor may not order an extradition in Britain. Instead, he/she would only begin the process.

In the U.S.,  an extradition would require that a charge had been filed.
To refer to such restrictions as technicalities is to demean the law. Both Britain and Sweden likely will be embarrassed.

So far, more questions have been raised than answered. It is widely believed the extradition is meant to keep relations between the CIA and Swedish intelligence agency cordial.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bGxRDEojjAuWJsUB1Ld8L-BA2vDFDWLdxEsJFafdzPM/edit?pli=1&hl=en_US

http://justice4assange.com/Rule-of-Law.html

Our Allies in Pakistan and Afganistan Kill Us And Insult Us

   
     The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost our nation trillions, as our infrastructure falls apart. No value can be put on blood. Cops, teachers, firefighters, hospital workers are laid off. Schools are closed.
    
     Yet when one of our generals, Peter Fuller, tells the truth about what is going on he gets fired.
    
     Daniel Petraeus and other commanders have known from the start that Pakistan supported the Taliban and Haqqani networks and other insurgents. There are so many groups fighting us the media had to create a new word: militants.
    
     American soldiers and contractors have been killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan with weapons and ammo the U.S. provided Pakistan.
    
     Despite claims by Petraeus and others that we are winning, casualties in Afghanistan are at their highest level ever. During the Vietnam War a more skeptical nation recognized "the five o'clock follies" for what they were.
    
     One famous joke: In 1969 IBM's smartest computer was asked when the war would be over at the current kill rate of Viet Cong and NVA. The answer was 1967.
    
     The only warrior to ever defeat the Afghans was Alexander the Great, and he had to marry one of their princesses to get a deal.
    
     The big difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam is that there are no draftees. Should that justify fighting a war we have no interest in?
    
     Afghan President Hamid Karzai had insulted America on numerous occasions. He made it clear he wanted our military to die before risking killing an Afghan civilian.
    
     When he said Afghanistan would support Pakistan if the U.S. attacked it, Maj. Gen. Fuller said:
    
     “Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You’ve got to be kidding me … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care’?”
    
     He also said NATO would rather teach Afghans how to fish than buy them fish. But they would prefer to just get more free fish.