WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

A valid European Arrest Warrant may only be issued by the competent judicial authority in the issuing member state. In the UK, this authority is the Crown Prosecution Service. The issuing state must complete a form stating the nature of the offence and giving a short description of the circumstances surrounding the offence, details of the person sought and the applicable penalty. This form is then sent to the relevant receiving state if the issuing state knows the location of the person sought. If the issuing state does not know the location of the person sought, they will distribute the EAW to all member states via SIRENE and INTERPOL.[8]

Once arrested, the person must be informed of the EAW and its contents. They must also be informed that they have the right to consent to surrender and the right to legal advice and an interpreter. If they do not consent to surrender they will face a hearing, where a judge will decide whether any of the legal bars to extradition exist. These legal bars include;

1. the arrested person has already been convicted or acquitted of the same offence or an offence relating to the same facts as those described in the EAW;
2. extraneous considerations (e.g. a risk that the person will be prosecuted or prejudiced at trial due to race, religion or political opinions);
3. passage of time (extradition would be unjust or oppressive given the time elapsed);
4. the person’s age is below the legal age of criminal responsibility; or
5. the physical or mental condition of the person makes it unjust or oppressive to extradite.

If one of these legal bars applies, the Judge must discharge the arrested person. If none of these legal bars apply, the Judge must order the extradition of the arrested person. There must be an opportunity for both parties to appeal the decision. Extradition must take place within 90 days of arrest or within 10 days if the arrested person consents to surrender.

Never thought Sweden was a puppet state for the US. How disgusting!

http://www.slate.com/id/2276892/

Is "Sex by Surprise" Illegal in the United States?

How would the alleged Swedish sex crimes of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fare in an American court?

By Jessica GrosePosted Monday, Dec. 6, 2010, at 6:20 PM ET
Julian Assange's lawyer told AOL News on Thursday that the WikiLeaks founder has been charged with "sex by surprise" in Sweden. Though the lawyer says he doesn't know what "sex by surprise" means, the Swedish prosecution office announced that they are charging Assange with "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." These charges allegedly stem from consensual sexual encounters with two separate women that became nonconsensual at some point during the act. (Update, Dec. 7, 2010: Julian Assange was arrested in Britain by an extradition unit on Swedish charges of unlawful coercion, sexual molestation, and rape.) If this had happened in the United States, could Assange have been charged with a crime?
Possibly. The traditional common-law rule is that there needs to be both lack of consent and the threat of physical force in order for a sexual violation to constitute rape. By that standard, Assange might be in the clear if his alleged activities took place in the United States (and if no violence was involved). But in some states, lack of consent can by itself serve as the basis for a rape charge. The exact circumstances under which a woman might revoke her consent varies: In Illinois, for example, it is considered rape if a woman says "no" at any time during sex and her partner does not stop. Other states are vague on the question of whether someone can change her mind after penetration has occurred. And some courts have been very clear that consent is locked in once intercourse has begun.

There used to be even more requirements for a woman to bring rape charges. Until the legal reform movement that began in the 1970s, a prosecutor would take on a case only if the woman could corroborate that the rape had occurred—her own testimony was insufficient without a third-party witness or evidence of serious injury. That requirement has been dropped from most state rape laws. Feminist reformers also tried to do away with the idea that rape must include at least the threat of physical force, but with less success. The so-called "resistance requirement"—as in, the woman must try to resist the attack—has remained on the books in most states, albeit in a watered-down form. For example, a woman no longer has to prove that she fought back to the best of her ability—she only needs to prove that she did enough to let her partner know she did not want sex.

Why is he under house arrest if not to wait for his hearing for extradition to Sweden?

While I appreciate your quirky sarcasm you can't hide from the fact that you labelled a bunch of questions and posts by individuals as an organised belief in a conspiracy, then sought to debunk it, and then did a little dance. Maybe you need two torches.

I don't read that the same way you do. I see the "consent to surrender" as synonymous with not fighting the extradition and agreeing to be extradited within the 10 day period.

Sky News first reported that the Australian had been arrested at 9:30 GMT. A few minutes later, Assange's London-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, appeared to deny the rumour, telling the Press Association:

"I haven't even seen the warrant yet. We have got 10 days to do this and a lot of complex schedules to organise... I am sure it will be announced when it happens. I have not yet spoken to the police."

It was the Maj Sjovall & Per Wahloo series that got me interested in criminal procedurals set in other than the US/England ... a long time ago.

I was looking into the "sex by surprise" thing and I think this might have been a bad media translation ...