If the US does take him from Sweden, then it will only serve as huge negative PR against them, and call into question the motives of the UK courts. The backlash could be huge.
I suspect a lot of people here will rush to call some kind of politically motivated conspiracy. I suspect they don't really understand how the UK legal system works.
If you actually read the judgment [0], you'll see it's pretty iron-clad. Very few people in the field thought this appeal was going to succeed. The simple fact is that the UK has obligations to Europe, including turning over those accused of committing crimes in other member states. It is extremely hard to get out of those obligations.
I cannot overstate just how detailed the judgement is. There is very little room for maneuverer by Assange, and his legal defence during the appeal was pretty poor. His entire defence is ripped apart.
People seem to be under the mistaken impression it is somehow up to the English courts to determine whether Assange is guilty or not. It isn't. It's up to the English courts to determine whether the warrant for his arrest was issued properly, and whether it meets the relevant dual-criminality standards. Which it was, and does, on every level.
The issue of whether Assange is at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden is not relevant to this case, in any way, shape, or form.
I'm a Brit, and I was under the impression that our government bends over and gives the US anyone they want, whereas the Swedes give a shit about peoples rights...
I'd have thought Assange is safer from the US in Sweden than he was in the UK. Plus he'll find it a lot easier to travel to different countries if he's on mainland Europe (assuming he's not imprisoned for this rape stuff)
There was a bit of an outcry last year when it turned out that the U.S. had been performing surveillance around their embassies in Norway, and I remember reading some suggestions at the time that there was actually Norwegian co-operation to some extent - but I'd have to dig back in detail to find the reports.
There was also an admission around the same time that similar monitoring had been taking place in Sweden.
And finally, one of the Swedish prosecutors raised very early on the possibility of extraditing Assange to the U.S. following prosecution.
Here are a few reading references to back these up - as mentioned in this thread, it's far from clear without knowing the full details, but here are some pieces to fill out the context:
* Swedish charges leaked
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/
* U.S. Surveillance in Norway
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/04/officials-howling-ove...
* Similar surveillance admission in Sweden
http://www.thelocal.se/30062/20101106/#
* Prosecutor's suggestions regarding extradition from Sweden to U.S.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/swedish-prosecut...
I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't hand over people who may face the death penalty - although it wouldn't surprise me if there was an exclusion to this sensible rule for the US.
You must be thinking about the days when we had guys like Olof Palme (who incidentally got shot).
Nowadays we are being run by a right-wing coalition dominated by 'Moderaterna', which is the only political party in Sweden refusing to declare from where they get their campaign money. Just recently they also tried to take credit for being part of the movement for equal vote and against apartheid, when in reality they were against womens right to vote and also was the only party who did not want sanctions against apartheid, hilarious.
Not that our government being right-wing has anything to do with Assange, no matter what government we'd have sitting today (left,right) they would bend to US pressure just as quickly.
When you have multiple world leaders going after you, there's not much you can do. Basically Julian is fucked.
As for the secret trials and disappearing thing. Sweden has such a good reputation on freedom that Wikileaks wanted to relocate here before Assange got into trouble. He's certainly no worse off here than in the UK.
There is a reason why the politicians are not supposed to comment on criminal cases. There is also a reason why people are supposed to make their decisions on the evidence and arguments in the court rather than being influenced by the media.
Search on the internet for "Julian Assange is a rapist" on google.se and you will find countless claims that he is guilty coming from people in Sweden. Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman, brings up 1.5 million results on google.se.
Having a secret trial, in a country proven to declare the guilt of the accused - without hearing the evidence - is not a fair trial.
The whole thing makes a mockery of justice. He should be given a fair trial - as should anyone else on this planet.
Let's try and flip nationalism around for the moment. Assume You personally were accused of something by the prosecutors of Finland, or the USA. Then the president of the USA comes out and says that you are "an enemy of the people", and states that you have bad ideas on committing crimes. Then you are going to be shipped off to the USA for a trial - but of course the evidence will not be made public, people will just have to trust the courts.
There is a great risk of an unfair trial in Sweden for this case(not all cases). There is also a high risk that he will be sent to the USA and face execution once in Sweden - as stated by the Swedish prosecution.
International law, and human rights should apply. This should be taken to a higher court in the UK.
Also "Julian Assange är en våldtäktsman" returns 360 hits, not 1.5 mil, where most of them are the suffix of the meaning "If Julian Assange is a rapist...", so your interpretation is a bit off. As others have stated, the verdict is still out. Swedes are not smelling blood, and I resent that interpretation of Swedes as a collective and the accusation that he would not get a fair trial in Sweden.
Can you give an example of any previous cases that has gone to a "secret trial" here in Sweden?
The Swedish Prime Minister has declared the man guilty, as well major Swedish news sources have declared his guilt. Those are the best evidence I can give - elected members, and the press. I can only give anecdotal evidence of the Swedish people accusing him of being a misogynist and a rapist - without hearing evidence. There is even an element of racism, as he is an Australia, so obviously he must have done it. My experience based on friends, and friends of friends in Sweden is that many of them think he is guilty.
There have been many instances of secret trials in Sweden. Not including the old Swedish Nazi trials of course, but more recently. See the quote from the prosecuting QC as evidence that the trial will not be public.
The Swedish Parliament make the laws, and the Prime Minister has proclaimed the man guilty. Do you not see the lack of justice there?
The prime minister is not the head of the parliament; he is the head of the government. The head of the parliament is called "talman" (the "speaker" if I would hazard a guess at translating it). You are right in that it is the parliament that make the laws.
What the Swedish prime minister has done is defending the Swedish judicial system which, at least to me, seem like a reasonable thing for him to do. You can read more about it here for example
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/8437-swedish-pm-slams-ju....
I can not find any reputable sources where he is quoted as saying that Assange is guilty.
Regarding the media they have written the same gossip/sensationalistic crap the media of all western countries seem to write in these circumstances, varying wildly between "totally innocent" and "guilty" with a lot of erroneous reporting and misunderstandings in between.
Oh, now I understand what you mean with "secret trials", a better way of putting it is "trials that are closed to the public" which is often done here in Sweden in trials concerning rape or children. That is put in place to protect the victims and although I don't know for sure I can't image that we are the only country in the world to practice it.
All affected parties are of course allowed in to the court room, but you and I ("the public") are not. The verdict is made public as usual.
If the the evidence is not made public in the Swedish trial, then it is a mockery of justice. How can anyone take the word of the court that it was a fair trial? It is not transparent.
Saying "Asange is an enemy of the people" is not just defending the Swedish legal system.
International law covering human rights applies in Sweden, and those rights will be violated by a secret trial. A country either respects international law and human rights, or it does not. Sweden does not respect this facet of the law, or this human right.
In some countries media can be taken to task for declaring someone a rapist without proof. How many of the media has been taken to task in Sweden for doing so? It is strange how the Swedish legal system has been suspiciously quiet in this regard.
Count the number of Swedish people sticking up for this Human in this thread. I guess flag sales are up in Sweden, because there does not seem to be many Swedish people arguing that the Swedish state could possibly be wrong here.
And there's a different between a rape trial being held in private (see fun2have's post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3186245) and some secret committee.
Personally, I think there are too many contradictions (like the fact that the stories have changed) for this to be something other than politically motivated. But we shall see.
Is the head of Parliament also the judge at his trial? Will the Swedish people be voting on the verdict American Idol-style?
If not, then no, I don't see 'the lack of justice there'. The legislative and judicial functions are kept separate for a reason.
Ironically, had his defense been able to show any of that was vaguely true, he probably would have been able to resist the extradition request.
(I'm generally a strong advocate for transparency, but I think you could make a very convincing case for preventing the public and the press from observing every detail of a trial where a rape victim is confronting her accuser.)