Julian Assange hearing is 'Hamlet without the princess'

[Joanne98]

Outside court, Mr Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens said: "Today, we have seen a Hamlet without the princess, a prosecutor who has been ready to feed the media within information, but has been unwilling to come here."

He continued to challenge the Swedish prosecutor and asked her to "subject yourself to the cross-examination" when the case resumes on Friday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8312010/Julian-Assange-hearing-is-Hamlet-without-the-princess.html

Video of Assange and his lawyer at link

[xchrom]

1. recommend

man those brits do not mince words.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. WHy would the Swedish prosecutor not show for the extradition hearing if this

as important as we are relentlessly told that it is?

[xchrom]

3. good question. nt

[EFerrari]

12. Iirc, there was a question raised in the EU about her warrant.

A case was made that requesting Interpol for a request for a witness was unlawful.

[xchrom]

4. kick

[EFerrari]

5. (Mark, there is no princess in Hamlet.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Ophelia was a"To be or Wanabee?" princess except for that swimming mishap.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[EFerrari]

7. Maybe 'Measure for Measure' without Mistress Overdone?

Merchant of Venice without Portia?

I know he was going for something here, lol, just can't figure out what it was.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Romeo without Juliet? Othello without Desdemona?

Ricky without Lucy?

My first thought, like yours, was "What Princess?" When using literary allusions one should be wary of the literate people listening or one may be searching for a way to remove one's lower extremity from one's mouth.

[MilesColtrane]

9. No princess, but there are at least two ladies in waiting to prosecute his ass.

[struggle4progress]

10. Sweden is a category 1 territory for the purposes of the 2003 Extradition Act,

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3333/article/2/made

So the extradition request is covered by Part I of the Act

... If the judge is satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence and that none of the bars to extradition apply (the rule against double jeopardy; extraneous considerations; passage of time; the person’s age; hostage-taking considerations; speciality; the person’s earlier extradition), he is required to decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 ...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro1/extrad-part-1/

"Hamlet without the princess" is vacuous noise. Either Sweden has filed a normally-recognized extradition request, or it has not. If Sweden has filed a normally-recognized extradition request, then the next question is whether any bar to extradition applies: the only ones that really might be available to Assange seems to be "extraneous considerations," which looks like an uphill slog, or (later in the process) a showing that the extradition would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which is probably also an uphill slog; see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/13 and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/21

See:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

[Better Believe It]

11. K & R

[Jack Rabbit]

13. There's a princess in Hamlet?

Ophelia is a commoner, or so I thought. I guess I don't know Hamlet as well as I thought.

[xchrom]

14. Kick