- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
Assange in U.K. Supreme Court over extradition fight
Question of the Day
LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took his extradition battle to Britain’s Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that sending him to Sweden would violate a fundamental principle of natural law.
The two-day hearing is Mr. Assange‘s last chance to persuade British judges to quash efforts to send him to Scandinavia, where he is wanted on sex-crimes allegations.
In Britain as in the United States, generally only judges can issue arrest warrants, and British courts honor warrants issued only by what they describe as judicial authorities.
Assange lawyer Dinah Rose rejected that argument Wednesday, telling the seven justices gathered in Britain’s highest court that a prosecutor “does not, and indeed cannot as a matter of principle, exercise judicial authority.”
She said that wasn’t just a parochial British view, but rather a “fundamental principle” that stretches back 1,500 years to the Codex Justinius, the Byzantine legal code.
“No one may be a judge in their own case,” Ms. Rose said.
Ms. Rose spent the first 2½ hours of the hearing combing through British case law and parsing European draft treaties to buttress her case — in some cases slipping into French to make finer points and wording.
She claimed that those who set the rules for European extraditions expected that judicial authorities issuing warrants would be independent and impartial, noting that drafters dropped the reference to public prosecutors from the final version of their text.
Evidence showed, she said, that drafters believed “that the European arrest warrant was a very serious measure that has to be issued by a court.”
Karen Todner, a prominent extradition specialist, said before the case started that Mr. Assange‘s lawyers were unlikely to overcome the benefit of the doubt usually afforded to other European countries’ judicial systems.
British judges “absolutely defer” to their European counterparts’ justice systems, she said, adding that she would be “very surprised” if Mr. Assange’s team won the day.
TWT Video Picks
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Pentagon wants extra $19M to equip, train Ukrainian troops
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- Houston mayor: Sorry that police put man's blind dog on road to die
Top 10 U.S. military helicopters
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors