Crime comum, pelo qual os suecos, coincidentemente sob governo de direita conservadora, pró-americana no contexto internacional, decidiram pedir a extradição para julgá-lo.
Por trás de tudo estaria o Departamento de Estado americano, com Hillary Clinton e Obama ensandecidos e pressionando, por conta das consequências diplomáticas desastrosas que não só aqueles documentos, mas muitos outros, de outros países, haviam causado após revelação dos atos de espionagem e intervenção de embaixadas pelo mundo afora.
No Brasil, por exemplo, o então ministro Nelson Jobim ficou em palpos de aranha para se explicar sobre os comentários negativos feitos contra Celso Amorim e sua política externa, naquilo que prejudicava os Estados Unidos. E alguns jornalistas da mídia conservadora se viram envolvidos na condição de informantes da embaixada, situação não muito palatável para os que vivem de arrotar uma falsa "isenção".
O fato é que, com essa extradição sendo executada, a condição pessoal de Assenge entra em risco muito maior do que o gerado pelo processo sueco. O que estaria por trás seria uma transferência para os Estados Unidos, impossibilitados legalmente de fazer o pedido direto de extradição aos ingleses, tendo em vista que o realizado pelo WikiLeaks não poderia ser caracterizado como crime.
Mas os americanos querem enquadrá-lo nas leis ianques de combate ao terrorismo (da era Bush) e à espionagem, como fizeram com o soldado Manning, acusado de ter vazado os documentos do iraque. e preso em condições que só muito recentemente podem ser considerados como minimamente humanas e respeitosa de direitos carcerários.
Muito grave, portanto, o quadro que se avizinha, tendo em vista ser um passo a mais - após o sufoco financeiro promovido pelo bloqueio de contribuições de internautas - na tentativa de liquidar o WikiLeaks.
Segue a matéria do The Guardian, ingles:
Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition
High court judges rule the WikiLeaks founder should face accusations of rape in Sweden
Julian Assange denies the rape allegations and says they are politically motivated. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has lost his high court appeal against extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations.
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley on Wednesday handed down their judgment in the 40-year-old Australian's appeal against a European arrest warrant issued by Swedish prosecutors after rape and sexual assault accusations made by two Swedish women following his visit to Stockholm in August 2010.
Assange, who was wearing a navy blue suit, pale blue tie and a Remembrance Day poppy, remains on bail pending a decision on a further appeal. The judges ruled the issuing of the warrant and subsequent proceedings were "proportionate" and dismissed arguments that the warrant had been invalid and descriptions of the alleged offences unfair and inaccurate.
Assange gave no sign of emotion as the judges gave reasons for the decision.
Assange's lawyers said they would take 14 days to decide whether to seek the right to appeal to the supreme court and said they would challenge the £19,000 costs against him, indicating he might not have the means to pay.
If he is denied the right to appeal then British law enforcement officers will be responsible for arranging his removal to Sweden within 10 days.
Assange was surrounded by a melee of photographers as he arrived at court. Supporters had fixed banners to railings saying: "Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars."
Bradley Manning is the detained American soldier alleged to have leaked hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.
After the decision, supporters outside the court said they were outraged. Ciaron O'Reilly, 51, said: "Assange is probably the most amazing person in recent history who's upset so many powerful people in such a short space of time so it's obviously not a level playing field." The decision comes three and a half months after the end of an appeal hearing in July, when lawyers for Assange argued the arrest warrant was invalid because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of the two women he allegedly had sex with.
Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, had claimed the warrant "misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone, an invalid warrant".
He recounted evidence of the encounter on the night of 13 August 2010 between Assange and a woman known as AA, who was hosting Assange at her apartment, during which AA said Assange tried to have sex with her without a condom.
Emmerson said there was no evidence of a lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation contained in the arrest warrant.
He argued the court had to decide only on whether the arrest warrant in connection with the events was valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds.
Acting for the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Clare Montgomery QC said the charges detailed in the warrant were valid allegations and said AA, and another woman, known as SW, had described "circumstances in which they did not freely consent without coercion".
She said the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."
In February, when Assange challenged the extradition moves at Westminster magistrates court, his legal team warned their client could be at "real risk" of the death penalty of detention in Guantánamo Bay because they feared the US authorities would request his extradition from Sweden to face charges relating to WikiLeaks obtaining and publishing hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents.
The senior district judge threw out the appeal and ordered his extradition, and a week later Assange appealed to the high court.
He changed his legal team and adopted a less vocal strategy.
Assange has in effect been under house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk since December 2010. He has to sign in at a local police station every day, he wears an electronic tag that monitors his movements and he has to be back inside the house by 10pm each night.
Swedish prosecutors said Assange has been "detained in his absence on probable cause suspected of rape (less severe crime), sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley on Wednesday handed down their judgment in the 40-year-old Australian's appeal against a European arrest warrant issued by Swedish prosecutors after rape and sexual assault accusations made by two Swedish women following his visit to Stockholm in August 2010.
Assange, who was wearing a navy blue suit, pale blue tie and a Remembrance Day poppy, remains on bail pending a decision on a further appeal. The judges ruled the issuing of the warrant and subsequent proceedings were "proportionate" and dismissed arguments that the warrant had been invalid and descriptions of the alleged offences unfair and inaccurate.
Assange gave no sign of emotion as the judges gave reasons for the decision.
Assange's lawyers said they would take 14 days to decide whether to seek the right to appeal to the supreme court and said they would challenge the £19,000 costs against him, indicating he might not have the means to pay.
If he is denied the right to appeal then British law enforcement officers will be responsible for arranging his removal to Sweden within 10 days.
Assange was surrounded by a melee of photographers as he arrived at court. Supporters had fixed banners to railings saying: "Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars."
Bradley Manning is the detained American soldier alleged to have leaked hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.
After the decision, supporters outside the court said they were outraged. Ciaron O'Reilly, 51, said: "Assange is probably the most amazing person in recent history who's upset so many powerful people in such a short space of time so it's obviously not a level playing field." The decision comes three and a half months after the end of an appeal hearing in July, when lawyers for Assange argued the arrest warrant was invalid because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of the two women he allegedly had sex with.
Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, had claimed the warrant "misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone, an invalid warrant".
He recounted evidence of the encounter on the night of 13 August 2010 between Assange and a woman known as AA, who was hosting Assange at her apartment, during which AA said Assange tried to have sex with her without a condom.
Emmerson said there was no evidence of a lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation contained in the arrest warrant.
He argued the court had to decide only on whether the arrest warrant in connection with the events was valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds.
Acting for the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Clare Montgomery QC said the charges detailed in the warrant were valid allegations and said AA, and another woman, known as SW, had described "circumstances in which they did not freely consent without coercion".
She said the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."
In February, when Assange challenged the extradition moves at Westminster magistrates court, his legal team warned their client could be at "real risk" of the death penalty of detention in Guantánamo Bay because they feared the US authorities would request his extradition from Sweden to face charges relating to WikiLeaks obtaining and publishing hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents.
The senior district judge threw out the appeal and ordered his extradition, and a week later Assange appealed to the high court.
He changed his legal team and adopted a less vocal strategy.
Assange has in effect been under house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk since December 2010. He has to sign in at a local police station every day, he wears an electronic tag that monitors his movements and he has to be back inside the house by 10pm each night.
Swedish prosecutors said Assange has been "detained in his absence on probable cause suspected of rape (less severe crime), sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário