Swedish court refuses Assange warrant appeal

[maddezmom]

Source: ABC.net

Swedish court refuses Assange warrant appeal
Posted 9 minutes ago

Sweden's highest court has refused permission to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to appeal against an arrest order issued over alleged sexual crimes.

Mr Assange's lawyer this week appealed against an arrest warrant, which also led to an Interpol notice.

The court decision means the domestic and international arrest warrants still stand.

"The High Court has not granted a leave to appeal, so the the Svea Court of Appeals ruling still stands," High Court official Kerstin Norman told Reuters.

Sweden issued an arrest warrant for the 39-year-old Australian on November 18, citing "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion", related to contacts with two women in Sweden in August.



Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/02/3083338.htm?section=justin

[hlthe2b]

1. Pretty intense pressure the US is exerting, I'm guessing...

Given how trumped up these charges appear to be, as evidenced by the earlier withdrawal of the investigation by Swiss authorities, I find this whole episode disturbing. I'm not sure the world needed the wikileak memos to see how far from our democratic principles we have fallen.

[MrMickeysMom]

2. Someone close to Valerie Plame should come out publicly

and remind them about THAT treasonous act, unnoticed by all the yammering, know-nothing Republicans

This "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" is actually tied to Interpol? I guess all the peeps with IQ's over their shoes size should see what's going on here.

[RZM]

3. I don't think we have enough real info yet

This isn't yet into Duke lacrosse territory, where after a while it was pretty obvious to even casual observers the charges were bogus. We don't have that kind of info yet here. I'm pretty skeptical about this, but more needs to come out before we make definitive judgments.

[Iowa]

4. No... we should make judgements now.

We should presume innocence unless it is proven otherwise. Otherwise any bogus accusation can be an easy and effective way to smear a good person's reputation.

[RZM]

5. That's certainly a sound legal argument

But I don't think basic legal fairness is what is causing people to presume he's innocent in this case. I think it has more to do with the fact that many DUers share Assange's views and also are ready to believe the accusations are part of a conspiracy against him. Maybe they are . . . but I'm not ready to say that yet. I do agree with presumption of innocence, but not presumption of conspiracy and that's what I was trying to say.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

7. my judgement is that while i consider him innocent legally

his actions is giving me a feeling of that he has something to hide since he seems to do what he can to avoid appearing for questioning

[reorg]

8. your judgement is unsound

since you obviously ignore easily available information.

He has never avoided to appear for questioning, on the contrary, he asked to be questioned and only left Sweden when the authorities agreed that he could.

Listen to his lawyer:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/2/attorney_confirms_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange

[reorg]

6. Yes, we do

The police interviews were leaked to the press quite a while ago, the allegation is over condom use, not sex. While Assange was in Sweden, he had offered to be interviewed by the prosecution about the allegations, in fact he publicly complained that they didn't. Now that the next batch of leaks is out, the prosecution suddenly changed their mind?

You need to be a real sucker to buy into this - if you know what has been published about the case, that is.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

[snagglepuss]

9. Odd how this itty bit of information isn't mentioned in the news. It must not

be all that important. :sarcasm: