WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden
Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 December 2010 20.55 GMT

Swedish prosecutor's office says it has 'not got a view at all on bail' and that Britain made decision to oppose it

The decision to have Julian Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden, as previously thought, the Guardian has learned.

The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.

It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.

Lawyers for Assange reacted to the news with shock and said CPS officials had told them this week it was Sweden which had asked them to ensure he was kept in prison.

Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, told the Guardian: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."

As a result, she said, Sweden will not be submitting any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing tomorrow morning. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."

After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction … to make such decisions."....<cont>

There's an interesting discussion amongst some folks who discuss these types of things here.

Extradition for “political offenses” is rare, and Sweden has a long history of granting political asylum/refusing political extradition. Only extreme diplomatic pressure (of a form I cannot readily imagine being actually applied) would be likely to compel the Swedes to yield him up for trial. The British might be more willing to extradite him, and our extradition treaty with them might cover these offenses. One would hope that the Administration does not delay its extradition request until after Assange moves to a less-favorable jurisdiction.

There's an interesting discussion amongst some folks who discuss these types of things here.

failures art wrote:

What do you mean by "strategically?"

Also, unless Time altered it's policy this year, what is there to suggest that the selection of Zuckerburg is strategic? And what do you perceive is the objective of said strategy?

As someone mentioned before, selecting Zuckerberg will have virtually no
backlash on time magazine, as he a) defied the government and gave wikileaks a platform to publish and b) facebook has 500 million active users - they like
facebook and they like what he did for wikileaks. So, it was a good strategy
of time magazine to choose Zuckerberg as he'll generate the least amount of outcry from Assange supporters.

That was an interesting read, and the common consent is that it will be much
easier to prosecute than to convict. I interpreted from their carefully written
answers, that it will be almost impossible.

Why they should care? Time magazine is in the business of selling magazines
and need customers, that's why.

There was a backlash against Amazon and Mastercard, so why spare Time magazine?

Why can't it be just about Zuckerberg? Just because he happens to be in the crossfire - nothing personal.

Then stop asking questions about it, very simple!

That is interesting.

Perhaps their original claim that they wished for Assange to benefit from protective custody is more legitimate than I first thought.

Or they would like to see the Assange affair put to bed and they didn't want to seem him skip bail and drag the thing out.

Or perhaps it was just a reflex action by a prosecutor

Or the UK is doing the US a slight favor.

The British might be more willing to extradite Assange than the Swedes would.
Even the Swedes wouldn't indefinitely take the blame...

The British might be more willing to extradite Assange than the Swedes would.
Even the Swedes wouldn't indefinitely take the blame...