Assange loses extradition hearing

The Guardian mentioned it was seen by many as a "foregone conclusion>' Well, given statements by Judge Howard Riddle, I'd have to agree.

That said, there's cluelessness to spare here.

1. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig:

Hurtig acknowledged during a three-day hearing earlier this month that his witness statement, in which he maintained Ny had "made no effort" to interview Assange before he left Sweden, was untrue.

And, no, not a slip, chief magistrate Howard Riddle said.

2. Howard Riddle, per the Australian (dunno why this isn't in the Guardian story — let's maybe not be so hasty to decry US media self-censorship?):

There was no evidence he would be shipped off to the US and face the torture and human rights abuses alleged by Mr Assange's defence team, (the judge said.)

Really? Judge Riddle, meet Bradley Manning, possibly being tortured by deliberate isolation and sleep deprivation.

And, add this:

Mr Assange said the US Government had admitted that it was waiting to see the British court verdict before determining its own future action against him.

That said, even without Hurtig's willful misstatements, it seems Judge Riddle has had his mind made up in advance.

But, this is the bottom line:

Assange has never been charged with any offence relating to accusations made by two Swedish women in August while he was visiting Stockholm, nor has he been formally interrogated in connection with all four of the alleged crimes of rape and sexual assault. His lawyers had argued that this meant the EAW, issued by prosecutor Marianne Ny, was not legal. They also maintained that the alleged offences would not be illegal in the UK, and that a "secret" rape trial would be a breach of Assange's human rights.

That's the bottom line. It's ridiculous for a country to have warrants without charges.

Unless, of course, it's the United States wanting to hold people as "material witnesses." But, that's American exceptionalism!