We're told that Julian Assange "will soon know whether
he will be extradicted to Sweden."

As Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser to Assange explains:

"If he doesn't win it means that anyone can be
extradited from the UK, be arrested and put into
detention at the behest of any prosecutor anywhere
in Europe without having to show any evidence, without
being charged and without proper judicial oversight.
I have faith in the British justice system... it should
not and cannot stand for this sort of precedent."

Should the Australian Government interfere in this
matter - considering the Assange is an Australian
citizen. Especially as no evidence against
him has been provided and no charges made. Should
the Australian Government allow this precedent to
be made against one of its citizens?

Your thoughts would be appreciated on this issue.

Dear Lexi,

Perhaps we should wait and see the details.

But even if he were a British rather than an Australian citizen, one would expect that the British courts would expect charges and evidence to be laid before them, before they would consider any extradition application.

And one would think that they would be especially careful, given that he is an Australian citizen in Britain: surely there would be Australian legal officers or whatever in court, observing proceedings minutely ?

If Sweden lays charges and provides sufficient grounds in a British court, to extradite a non-British, non-Swedish citizen out of its jurisdiction, one would expect a series of hurdles that would have to be overcome. If their case is persuasive, the Swedes then have to extradite him, try him and find him guilty or innocent as the case may be. But all of it would be in the full glare of international publicity, you'd think.

And if he is found not guilty, he would have to be brought back to Britain or to a country of his choice before he could he extradited to the US: the US would have to go through a similar process in Britain, or another country, but not in Sweden. After all, if he is found not guilty, then he is technically still in Britain, still entitled to go back there.

Fondest,

Joe

He failed to wear a condom while having consensual sex.
In that strange country this is called? rape!
The two women? after talking about it some time after, said maybe we should ask some one.
They received advice it was rape?
Or was it truly, consensual for sure so why not insist?
America wants to get their hands on him, for distributing some truths.
They, the nation that lets its return soldiers sleep in the streets, wants a death sentence,for the young man,who gave that truth to him.
So kill both kill truth kill accountability and kiss the bad part of Americas bottom.
Or maybe, we can bring the bloke home and take the rape case to the international court.
How can we let a not rape be seen as rape?

The allegedly eminent "hHuman Rights" lawyer Jeffrey Robertson had quite a bit to say about it on Q.A. the other night (and whose comments I most enjoyed along with the often pained expressions of the politicians subjected to his clarity and insight) and anyone interested would no doubt enjoy looking up the transcript.

Allegedly, Julian (what a legend) has no concerns about going to Sweden to face the courts over there, but as said, Sweden it is claimed has a terrible reputation for extraditing persons to the likes of N.America for purposes such as rendition without due process.

One of the things that I object strongly too regarding the views of the N.american's, and seriously, I get sick of listening to them, is not because I object to hearing their view in and of itself, but because so often in this tin pot little country it is largely all we hear, in the distinct absence of the real views of the other sides.

We hear things like, "anti-american," and "anti democratic" and all of the rest of the utter pig swill, whereas as WikiLeaks demonstrates, the N.american's are lieing, cheating, thieving, murdering little bags of the proverbial and I suspect that what they most are upset about is the growing failure of their tired old propaganda techniques to provide the so called "suspension of disbelief."

..

One thing for certain, and especially for those who believe in an eye for an eye, the so called terrorists certainly have a lot of catch up to do and no doubt, that remains their intention.

Here's a link that I found interesting:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-07/news/31298879_1_founder-julian-assange-european-arrest-warrant-geoffrey-robertson

This is only one of many articles to be found on the web
and they all seem to infer that there is indeed something
fishy - about the way in which Assange is being treated.
And one does being to wonder whether the Americans are
indeed involved in all this - in wanting Assange eventually
extradited to the US. I wonder what if any action will
our government take on his behalf?

Any one of intellect would know that since Obama via another Presidential signing order,intiated The National Defence Authorisation Act,there is no justice or rule of law in the West.The US Military is now Judge,Jury and executioner in the West with no recourse or justice from any of our cherished constitutions.

The West is being consumed by a totalitariarn bankster state and few realise or have the courage to confront it.