Assange extradition
The chatty style of the judgment is striking. It is written less like a judgment and more like a political stump speech by a politician trying to appear to be just plain folks. As a whole, it is simply appalling. Assange extradition. Looking at the judgment, it is quite a piece of judicial engineering. In every question that was raised, the judge either decides to side with the prosecution by completely ignoring all the evidence to the contrary (while subtly denigrating the expert witnesses), or claims or hints that the strongest argument wasn't raised by the defense (convenient, leaving us with the issue whether Assange's own lawyers - you know, the ones who thought it would be a bright idea to hire Dershowitz - are in on the conspiracy). He dismisses the main expert witness before him in the most condescending way possible, suggesting she has some kind of psychological problem with the Swedish justice system. The other defense witnesses have their evidence summarized (with little insulting jabs), and are then ignored. The judge is fascinated by the largely irrelevant communications between Assange and his lawyer while Assange was still in Sweden. This is a big issue because he later uses it to suggest that Assange is at fault for failing to stay to be interviewed, the obvious hint being that he was a guilty man fleeing the jurisdiction.
Julie Hyland: Judge rules WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden - The verdict marks a new stage in efforts to silence Assange and WikiLeaks and prevent further disclosure of the duplicitous and criminal actions undertaken by the United States and governments across the world. Assange has made clear his intention to appeal the ruling. He has just seven days to do so. If the appeal is rejected, he could be extradited within 10 days. This is despite the fact that Assange has yet to be charged with any offence, and a mountain of evidence that he is the victim of politically motivated, trumped-up allegations.