Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

Following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum, Julian Assange was arrested and removed from the country's embassy in London. He faces charges in the US of conspiracy to break into a computer, relating to Wikileaks' publication of more than 250,000 classified military documents and diplomatic cables in 2010. Should Assange be extradited to the US to face these charges? Was he doing a public service? Will he get a fair trial? Should he be sent to Sweden to face sexual assault charges instead?


Arguments supporting this position



In 2012, a High Court rejected Assange's final appeal to avoid extradition to Sweden. He faced charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden pertaining to an incident in 2010. [1]

The Argument

The court's ruling in 2012 still applies. Now he is out of the embassy and in British custody, he should promptly be extradited to Sweden and face the serious allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The statute of limitations on the crime has not yet passed. The crime was committed in 2010 and the statute of limitations on rape and sexual assault is ten years in Sweden. While the statute of limitations remains open, a case against Assange can be reopened. Given that the extradition request from Sweden was placed before any request from the US, it should take precedence. Should Sweden file another request, Assange should immediately be extradited.

Counter arguments

The charges against Assange were dropped in 2017. Therefore, the original extradition request no longer stands.[2] Assange maintained that the allegations were falsified and were a ruse to get him to Sweden and then extradite him to the United States from there. If there is any inkling that the Swedish authorities would extradite him to the United States, where he would face politically motivated charges and have no access to a fair trial, then the UK cannot extradite him to Sweden in good faith.[1]


[P1] A UK court has already approved an extradition request from Sweden. [P2] Therefore, it should execute this request and extradite him to Sweden.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Those charges were dropped. Therefore, the request no longer stands.




Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 30 Apr 2019 at 19:59 UTC