Wikileaks

[Zingari]

Surely "membership of a particular social group or political opinion" covers his status as a refugee with regard to extradition to USA , and I think many people consider that Sweden is merely a go-between for this .

[Webbo]

Surely "membership of a particular social group or political opinion" covers his status as a refugee with regard to extradition to USA , and I think many people consider that Sweden is merely a go-between for this .

No one should be naïve about the US, but this is a fallacious chain of reasoning. The US has not said whether it wants to detain Mr Assange, though it has had plenty of time to do so. If it wanted his extradition, the US might logically be more likely to make use of Britain's excessively generous extradition treaty with the US – which has not happened – rather than wait until he was in Sweden, when both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application. And neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty.

[Captain...]

http://www.guardian....ugee-protection

I agree entirely that we should not forcibly enter the Ecuadorian embassy, but the article again reiterates the point the US have not said whether they want him or not, if they just came out and made a statement either way, then this whole silly situation would be over.

The timing of these sex abuse claims are very suspect, especially as they have already been dealt with once, and the offer has been made to allow the Swedish police to question him in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which has been refused, seeing as he is only wanted for questioning.

Can you not see that this could be resolved very quickly, but the US and the Swedish police are refusing to take this action, that is by no way unreasonable, to clear up this rather minor indiscretion (unprotected consensual sex and not rape, the crime he is accused of is ripping the condom before putting it on) before it becomes an international incident, I have to ask myself why.

[Webbo]

I agree entirely that we should not forcibly enter the Ecuadorian embassy, but the article again reiterates the point the US have not said whether they want him or not, if they just came out and made a statement either way, then this whole silly situation would be over.

The timing of these sex abuse claims are very suspect, especially as they have already been dealt with once, and the offer has been made to allow the Swedish police to question him in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which has been refused, seeing as he is only wanted for questioning.

Can you not see that this could be resolved very quickly, but the US and the Swedish police are refusing to take this action, that is by no way unreasonable, to clear up this rather minor indiscretion (unprotected consensual sex and not rape, the crime he is accused of is ripping the condom before putting it on) before it becomes an international incident, I have to ask myself why.

What I see are double standards. If you say to woman be careful when you go out, don't have too much to drink you're condoning rape yet Julian Assange can rub his cock up against anyone he likes and it's no big deal.

[Zingari]

Excuse my cynicism with regard to the Grauniads reasoning that the ultimate aim is "fallacious"

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said he tried to secure guarantees from the Americans, the British and the Swedes that Assange would not be extradited to the United States, but was rebuffed by all three.

The Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal.

Even given that , surely there would be no problem with extradition if just Sweden gave this assurance

[Webbo]

Excuse my cynicism with regard to the Grauniads reasoning that the ultimate aim is "fallacious"

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said he tried to secure guarantees from the Americans, the British and the Swedes that Assange would not be extradited to the United States, but was rebuffed by all three.

The Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal.

Even given that , surely there would be no problem with extradition if just Sweden gave this assurance

But both Britain and Sweden would have to agree to that extradition, unless the Guardian are lying about a point of law, so why get the Swedes involved at all?

Don't forget the the Guardian published his leaks in the first place. It says something when even they can't think of a good reason not to deport him.

[ADK]

I don't know but is Assanges point of view maybe that the charges against him are false and that he is unlikely to receive a fair trial in Sweden?

[Webbo]

I don't know but is Assanges point of view maybe that the charges against him are false and that he is unlikely to receive a fair trial in Sweden?

Doesn't every accused criminal say that?

[Zingari]

But both Britain and Sweden would have to agree to that extradition, unless the Guardian are lying about a point of law, so why get the Swedes involved at all?

Don't forget the the Guardian published his leaks in the first place. It says something when even they can't think of a good reason not to deport him.

Perhaps you're right , maybe all we can do is wait for the outcome if he is sent to Sweden .

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he eventually ends up in the US via whatever circuitous route the diplomats manage to arrange for him

[21st Century Fox]

But both Britain and Sweden would have to agree to that extradition, unless the Guardian are lying about a point of law, so why get the Swedes involved at all?

Don't forget the the Guardian published his leaks in the first place. It says something when even they can't think of a good reason not to deport him.

The Guardian fell out with him a while ago.

The Australian government have also sought information from the U.S. regarding any extradition which hasn't been forthcoming.

[Captain...]

What I see are double standards. If you say to woman be careful when you go out, don't have too much to drink you're condoning rape yet Julian Assange can rub his cock up against anyone he likes and it's no big deal.

It is not about the nature of the charges, which are not cock rubbing, but unprotected consensual sex, but the consequences of his extradition.

It is about the fact that there could be an international incident on our soil which could be easily prevented by the US stating clearly their intentions. They haven't despite being asked to do so.

[Webbo]

It is not about the nature of the charges, which are not cock rubbing, but unprotected consensual sex, but the consequences of his extradition.

It is about the fact that there could be an international incident on our soil which could be easily prevented by the US stating clearly their intentions. They haven't despite being asked to do so.

You make it sound like America is somehow to blame for this. Hacking is a crime which he knowingly committed. America doesn't owe him any favours. But America haven't even asked for his extradition, Sweden has, for a sex crime, a crime against women. Something the left is supposed to be violently opposed to.

[sphericalfox]

You make it sound like America is somehow to blame for this. Hacking is a crime which he knowingly committed. America doesn't owe him any favours. But America haven't even asked for his extradition, Sweden has, for a sex crime, a crime against women. Something the left is supposed to be violently opposed to.

Err, the Yanks don't want him for hacking!

[21st Century Fox]

You make it sound like America is somehow to blame for this. Hacking is a crime which he knowingly committed. America doesn't owe him any favours. But America haven't even asked for his extradition, Sweden has, for a sex crime, a crime against women. Something the left is supposed to be violently opposed to.

He isn't wanted for hacking, they want him on espionage and conspiracy related charges.

[Captain...]

You make it sound like America is somehow to blame for this. Hacking is a crime which he knowingly committed. America doesn't owe him any favours. But America haven't even asked for his extradition, Sweden has, for a sex crime, a crime against women. Something the left is supposed to be violently opposed to.

What do political leanings have to with anything? As I said this is not about the accusations, which last time a checked if was only wanted in for questioning over, possibly due to the fact he has already been charged for these offences and found not guilty and there is no new evidence to warrant charging him again.

Should somebody wanted for questioning over any crime sex offence or otherwise be deported, I would say yes, if they have already been found not guilty of these charges once then I find it all a little suspicious, the fact that the US have refused to state their intentions towards him, then I completely understand his suspicion.

[leicsmac]

What do political leanings have to with anything? As I said this is not about the accusations, which last time a checked if was only wanted in for questioning over, possibly due to the fact he has already been charged for these offences and found not guilty and there is no new evidence to warrant charging him again.

Should somebody wanted for questioning over any crime sex offence or otherwise be deported, I would say yes, if they have already been found not guilty of these charges once then I find it all a little suspicious, the fact that the US have refused to state their intentions towards him, then I completely understand his suspicion.

This, especially the bolded part.

[Zingari]

Can someone clarify something for me as I can’t seem to understand something about this?

It’s widely reported that the UK offered Sweden the opportunity to question Assange here on numerous occasions which was refused without reason.

Why did we change our position in this respect? Why did we not continue to keep to this position with regard to his status?

What made the UK put itself into this ridiculous position, when all we needed to do was insist Sweden played it our way if they wanted to question him?

Or, if we were wrong to take this approach, why didn’t we ( uk) insist on him being extradited when first requested?

It’s the change of our position that is confusing me, and more importantly why we changed?

This is quite a good blog by Annie Machon ( who knows a little about our form of political persecution)

http://www.huffingto..._b_1790851.html

[breadandcheese]

http://www.newstates...nge-extradition

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

A brief critical and source-based guide to some common misconceptions.

BY DAVID ALLEN GREENPUBLISHED 20 AUGUST 2012 13:49

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts†which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

[Add: also now see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

(Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.)

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English lawâ€

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdomâ€

This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun for further detail on this.)

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USAâ€

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in Londonâ€

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictmentâ€). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.

Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:

140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not “disproportionate†as submitted by Assange’s lawyers:

160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.

The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.

Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.

Five: “By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the pressâ€

This is perhaps the strangest proposition.

Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom, and even the quickest glance at the examples of press abuse in Ecuador accumulated by Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship indicate a regime with a starkly dreadful and illiberal record on freedom of expression.

It has even recently been reported that a blogger called Alexander Barankov is to be extradited by Ecuador to Belarus, of all places, where he may face the death penalty.

Whatever the reason for Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange, there is no basis for seeing it as based on any sincere concern for media freedom either in Ecuador or elsewhere.

The way forward

Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

The English side of the process is now almost over: there is a valid European Arrest Warrant which has to be enforced as a matter of international law.

If Assange is extradited to Sweden, it may well be that the serious allegations of rape and sexual assault cannot be substantiated. But that is entirely a matter for the Swedish investigators and for any Swedish court. It is not an issue which can be dealt with by proxy in English litigation, and still less by heated internet exchanges. In the event of an extradition request by the USA then Assange has the same rights under EU and ECHR law as he has in the United Kingdom, together with an additional safeguard of consent being required from both UK and Sweden. It is difficult to see a sensible and well-based reason why Assange should not now go to Sweden.

Even taking the worries of Assange and his supporters at face value and at their highest, there is nothing which actually means the due process of a current rape and sexual assault investigation should be delayed any further or abandoned.

It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too, even when the suspect is Julian Assange.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

[Jon the Hat]

Well that nailed it.

I note that the only outspoken supporters of Assange re the Swedish charges seem to be morons. Getting sidetracked by "THE USA WANT HIM!!!" is completely irrelevant.

I would not like to see the police go into the Embassy, but they would have every right to do so.

[accessory]

Well that nailed it.

I note that the only outspoken supporters of Assange re the Swedish charges seem to be morons. Getting sidetracked by "THE USA WANT HIM!!!" is completely irrelevant.

I would not like to see the police go into the Embassy, but they would have every right to do so.

And no UK embassy abroad (especially in Tehran or Buenos Aires) would ever be safe again if they did.

[Jon the Hat]

And no UK embassy abroad (especially in Tehran or Buenos Aires) would ever be safe again if they did.

There must be other ways. Perhaps they can expel all the Embassy staff and turn off the power and water

[Reynard Bleu]

Well that nailed it.

I note that the only outspoken supporters of Assange re the Swedish charges seem to be morons. Getting sidetracked by "THE USA WANT HIM!!!" is completely irrelevant.

I would not like to see the police go into the Embassy, but they would have every right to do so.

According to some erudite they had on R4 the other day, the UK authorities can only enter an embassy if they can prove the building is being used for purposes other than that of a soveriegn embassy, we cant just crash in.

[leicsmac]

That article makes some extremely convincing arguments, and some of the comments section below it makes some very compelling counter-arguments too. Fascinating stuff.

My opinion on the matter however remains the same - if it is decided that he should stand trial in Sweden (which I reckon he probably should), it should be under the provisio that the Swedish and American authorities to come to an agreement that he would do so under no threat whatsoever of extradition to the US. I know the article says this is impossible, but surely some kind of diplomatic/legal agreement can be arrived at, given the profile of the case? I know it shouldn't be possible for it to happen, but purely for the look of the thing?

[Jon the Hat]

That article makes some extremely convincing arguments, and some of the comments section below it makes some very compelling counter-arguments too. Fascinating stuff.

My opinion on the matter however remains the same - if it is decided that he should stand trial in Sweden (which I reckon he probably should), it should be under the provisio that the Swedish and American authorities to come to an agreement that he would do so under no threat whatsoever of extradition to the US. I know the article says this is impossible, but surely some kind of diplomatic/legal agreement can be arrived at, given the profile of the case? I know it shouldn't be possible for it to happen, but purely for the look of the thing?

I fail to see why he should have that right? No one else does. What is so special about this man exactly?

[Reynard Bleu]

He's doing it all for you and I y'know, its not at all for himself.