<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
You are correct, I am not suggesting censorship - but interesting
that you ask.<br>
<br>
What I am merely asking for on this list is respect and tolerance
for difference.<br>
<br>
While there are many things that are much better handled in the
North (including finance and freedom of expression, well up to very
recently) there is a need for constant vigilence like on illegal
wars (where the remarkable consensus of opinion of this "free" press
was duped by a bunch of liars doped up on false evidence) or on the
financial crisis (where those who challenged the "fundamentals" were
silenced, treated like clowns or subject to namecalling - Doctors
Doom - Roubini, Baker etc)... <br>
<br>
Now it is all very well to be contrite afterwards, after "consent
has been manufactured" (in the Chomskian/Herman sense) and damage
done, in civil society the ticket of entry ought to be reason... so
toleration of difference is not too much to ask for, and that claims
by one side cannot be sustained merely by the calling of silencing
of "the other" as has been attempted on this list... <br>
<br>
What ought to be clear is that for some in the "South" and perhaps
some in the "North" is that American or Northern Exceptionalism is
not "legitimate" no matter how "effective."<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/23 04:21 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jonathan@jcave.eclipse.co.uk">jonathan@jcave.eclipse.co.uk</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity
- uncontrollable. It is certainly no tool of the State and as
contemptuous of government or opposition (depending on which one
you read) as of Assange. <br>
<br>
Surely you are not suggesting prior restraint or censorship?<br>
<br>
J.
<div>Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange</div>
<hr>
<div><b>From: </b> Riaz K Tayob <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com"><riaz.tayob@gmail.com></a>
</div>
<div><b>Sender: </b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Date: </b>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200</div>
<div><b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a></div>
<div><b>ReplyTo: </b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz">governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz</a> K Tayob
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com"><riaz.tayob@gmail.com></a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition:
Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> [Emphasis added...]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt</a><br>
<br>
<div id="main-article-info">
<h1 itemprop="name">The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media
contempt for Julian Assange</h1>
<p itemprop="description" id="stand-first"
class="stand-first-alone" data-component="comp : r2 :
Article : standfirst_cta">It is possible to protect the
rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights
against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for
vengeance is preventing that</p>
</div>
<div id="content">
<ul class="article-attributes trackable-component b4"
data-component="comp: r2: Byline">
<li class="byline">
<div class="contributor-full"> <span itemscope=""
itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span
itemprop="name"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="contributor" rel="author" itemprop="url"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald">Glenn
Greenwald</a></span> </span></div>
</li>
<li class="publication"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
itemprop="publisher" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">guardian.co.uk</a>,
<time itemprop="datePublished"
datetime="2012-08-22T18:10BST" pubdate="">Wednesday 22
August</time></li>
</ul>
<div id="article-wrapper">
<div id="main-content-picture" itemscope=""
itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject"> <br>
<div class="caption" itemprop="caption">Julian Assange:
the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris
Helgren/Reuters</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks">
<p><strong>(updated below - Update II)</strong></p>
<p>Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal
correspondent for the New Statesman David Allen Green
generated a fair amount of attention by <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition">announcing
that he would use his objective legal expertise</a> to
bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange
extradition." These myths, he said, are being
irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and "are like
'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." </p>
<p>In addition to his other credentials, Green – like
virtually the entire British press – is a <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/human-rights/2012/06/desperation-julian-assange">long-time
and deeply devoted Assange-basher</a>, and his
purported myth-busting was <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gawker.com/5936600/">predictably
regurgitated</a> by those who reflexively grasp onto
anything that reflects poorly on western
establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth
examining what Green argued to understand the behavior
in which Assange detractors engage to advance this
collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently
blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded,
objective legal expertise.</p>
<p>But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on
a truly amazing and revealing fact, one that calls for
formal study in several academic fields of discipline.
Is it not remarkable that one of the very few
individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare,
liberty and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html">even</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html">
life</a> to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime
on which the American national security state (and those
of its <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/un-torture-investigator-warns-uk-over.php">obedient
allies</a>) depends just so happens to have become –
long before he sought asylum from Ecuador – the most
intensely and personally despised figure among the
American and British media class and the British
"liberal" intelligentsia? </p>
<p>In 2008 – two years before the release of the
"collateral murder" video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war
logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html">prepared
a secret report</a> which proclaimed WikiLeaks to be
an enemy of the state and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S64J1rmc53I/AAAAAAAACWI/wiLUSVixG5U/s1600/pentagon2.png">plotted
ways to destroy</a> its credibility and reputation.
But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon operatives
never needed to do any of that, because the
establishment media in the US and Britain harbor at
least as much intense personal loathing for the group's
founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the
lead in targeting him. Many people like to posit the US
national security state and western media outlets as
adversarial forces, but here – as is <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=all">so
often the case</a> – they have so harmoniously joined
in common cause.</p>
<p>Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show
unlimited personal animus toward the person who, as a
panel of judges <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize">put
it</a> when they awarded him the the 2011 Martha
Gellhorn prize for journalism, "has given the public
more scoops than most journalists can imagine."
Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers
– the Walkley Foundation – <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.walkleys.com/news/5131/">awarded its
highest distinction</a> (for "Most Outstanding
Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, it <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.walkleys.com/2011winners#most-outstanding-contribution-to-journalism">cited</a>
the group's "courageous and controversial commitment to
the finest traditions of journalism: justice through
transparency," and observed: "So many eagerly took
advantage of the secret cables to create <em>more
scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine
in a lifetime</em>."</p>
<p>When it comes to the American media, I've <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks_10/">long
noted</a> this revealing paradox. The person who
(along with whomever is <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/bradley-manning-deserves-a-medal">the
heroic leaker</a>) enabled "more scoops in a year than
most journalists could imagine in a lifetime" – and who
was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/joe-biden-wikileaks-assange-high-tech-terrorist_n_798838.html">terrorist
by high U.S. officials</a> – is the most hated figure
among establishment journalists, even though they are
ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of
transparency and exposing serious government wrongdoing.
(This transparency was imposed not only <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/">on
the US and its allies</a>, but also some of the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com.br/2011/10/bill-keller-on-wikileaks-cables.html">most
oppressive regimes in the Arab world</a>). </p>
<p>But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely
personal, from the British press, much of which behaves
with staggering levels of mutually-reinforcing
vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn an
outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist
Seumas Milne wrote <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange">a
superb analysis</a> of British media coverage of
Assange, and observed that "the virulence of British
media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now
unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press,
Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a
bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" –
venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let
alone convicted, of anything."</p>
<p>Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from
self-styled sober journalists often borders on the
creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing that border).
Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller
infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all">claiming</a>
that Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed
around his ankles" and "smelled as if he hadn't bathed
in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks released over
400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific
facts about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and
US complicity in torture by Iraqi forces, the New York
Times front-paged <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?hp">an
article</a> purporting to diagnose Assange with a
variety of psychological afflictions and concealed,
malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology
observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic
and imperious behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur",
"he is not in his right mind", "pursuing a vendetta
against the United States").</p>
<p>A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently
watched Assange's interview of Ecuadorean president
Rafeal Correa and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-why-do-we-buy-julian-assanges-oneman-psychodrama-7869897.html">offered
up this wisdom</a>: "He's put on weight, his face is
puffy and he didn't bother to shave before his interview
with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted
of all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors
last week, in its lead article about Ecuador's decision
to grant asylum, decided it would be appropriate to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/nyt-flushes-assange-charges.html">include
a quote</a> from one of Assange's most dedicated
enemies claiming that when the WikiLeaks founder was a
visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the
toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of
mockery and disgust over their reporting on Assange's
alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly deleted that
passage without comment).</p>
<p><b>It is difficult to think of anyone this side of
Saddam Hussein who triggers this level of
personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from
establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol
would dare speak with the type of personalized scorn
toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who actually
launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths
of at least 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped
people from around the globe with no due process and
sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange
inspires among establishment media figures is really
sui generis.</b></p>
<p>It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that
this media contempt long pre-dates, and exists wholly
independent of, the controversy surrounding the sex
assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long
pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed,
given that he has not been convicted of anything, to
assume Assange's guilt would be reprehensible – every
bit as reprehensible as concluding that the allegations
are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations
should be dismissed as frivolous or inherently
untrustworthy. </p>
<p>It would be genuinely nice to think that the same
British government that <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jan/13/pinochet.chile6">refused
to extradite</a> the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/victims-of-pinochets-police-prepare-to-reveal-details-of-rape-and-torture-1183793.html">mass
rapist</a> Augusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a
devoted passion for ensuring that alleged sex assault
offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be
nice to believe that the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/human-rights-critics-russia-ecuador">sudden
interest</a> in denouncing Ecuador's press freedom
record was driven by some newly discovered and authentic
concern in the west for civil liberties protections in
South America. But as Milne put it last night with great
understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly
specious." As he rhetorically asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would
have gone global, or that the British government
would have made its asinine threat to suspend the
Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it
by force, or that scores of police would have
surrounded the building, swarming up and down the
fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all
about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime
allegations in Stockholm?"</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of
feminism when it comes time to justify the war in
Afghanistan, or those who become overnight advocates of
gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in
Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in
Ecuadorean press freedoms, these sex assault allegations
-- as serious and deserving of legal resolution as they
are -- are being cynically exploited as a political
weapon by many who have long despised Assange for
reasons entirely independent of this case.</p>
<p>* * * * * </p>
<p>There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes
such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among
them is competition: the resentment generated by
watching someone outside their profession generate more
critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets
combined (see <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001990.html">this
brilliant 2008 post</a>, in the context of the
Clintons, about how professional and ego-based
competition produces personal hatred like nothing else
can).</p>
<p><b>Other causes are more subtle though substantive.
Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the
costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core,
devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the
goodness of their society's power centers, and thus
resent those (like Assange) who actually and
deliberately place themselves outside of it. By
putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose
the world's most powerful factions, Assange has
clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial
dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted,
demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and
invited to parties within the halls of imperial power
– and he thus causes many journalists to stand
revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.</b></p>
<p>Then there's the ideological cause. <b>As one
long-time British journalist told me this week when
discussing the vitriol of the British press toward
Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more
than an opportunity to defend power while pretending
it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal
principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so
many of these self-styled liberal journalists <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/">to
support the attack on Iraq</a> and other acts of
Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And
it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental
critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to,
the institutions of power to which they are
unfailingly loyal.</b></p>
<p>* * * * * </p>
<p>With that context established, let us return to David
Allen Green. The attacks on those who have defended
Assange's extradition and asylum arguments has depended
on the disgusting slander that such advocates are
indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made
against him or, worse, <b>are "rape apologists." </b></p>
<p><b>The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken
to countless Assange defenders over the last couple of
years and not a single one – literally not one – is
dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden
to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly
resolved.</b> Typifying this view is Milne's column
last night, which in the midst of scorning the attacks
on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape
allegations made against Assange, for which he should
clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand
trial." </p>
<p><b>That is the view of every Assange defender with a
platform that I know of, including me (one can
certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or the
occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape
apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates
saying anything; imputing those views to Assange
defenders generally would be like claiming that all
Assange critics want to see him illegally shot in the
head or encaged for life because <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html">some
prominent American</a> and <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/the_list.html">other
commentators</a> have <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRMV7zi4h_k">called
for this</a>).</b></p>
<p><b>Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers
and the Ecuadorean government, have worked
relentlessly to ensure that <em>he faces those
allegations in Sweden</em>. They have merely sought
to do so in a way that protects him from extradition
to the US to face espionage charges for his journalism
– a threat that could send him to prison for life
(likely in a torturous super-max facility), and a
threat only the <u>wilfuly blind</u> could deny is <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html">serious
and real</a>. </b></p>
<p>In their <b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?ref=opinion">New
York Times op-ed this week</a>, Michael Moore and
Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British
and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the
sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." </b>That's
because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be
questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to
travel <em>today</em> to Sweden to face those
allegations if he could be assured that his doing so
would not result in his extradition to the US to face
espionage charges. </p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/rafael-correa-britain-julian-assange_n_1820515.html">Time
and again</a>, "Correa said Ecuador never intended to
stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've
asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a
third country,' he said." <b>Both <em>Britain and
Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any
agreement that could safeguard both the rights of
the complainants and Assange's rights not to be
imprisoned for basic journalism.</em></b></p>
<p>These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat
to the key false narrative that Assange and his
defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing
the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts
need to be impugned, and that's where David Allen Green
and his "myth-busting" legal expertise comes into play.</p>
<p>One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that
"the Swedes should interview Assange in London." This
cannot be, Green argues, because "Assange is not wanted
merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He
also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing
that the "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere
technical irrelevancy: the only reason this is true, he
says, is because he must be in Sweden for that to
happen.</p>
<p><b>But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling
a much different story. </b>Back then, they were
arguing that Assange was wildly overstating the danger
he faced from extradition to Sweden because the
investigation there was at such a preliminary stage and
he was merely wanted for questioning. Indeed, here's
what the very same David Allen Green <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/assange-eaw-sexual-sweden">wrote
on 28 February 2011</a> when explaining the status of
the investigation to his readers [my emphasis]:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of
course, that he will be extradited, <em>still less
that he will be charged</em>, tried, or convicted.
Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or
Sweden may decide either not to continue or to <em>interview
him while he remains in England</em>. However,
unless some such external event intervenes, Assange
will be shortly extradited to Sweden <em>to be
questioned</em> about an allegation of rape, two
allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation
of unlawful coercion."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange
has not been charged with any crime, that there is far
from any certainty that he would be, and that
extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be
questioned" on these allegations: exactly the "myths"
and "zombie facts" which he now purports to bust.
Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who
strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden">said
the same</a> [my emphasis]:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The UK supreme court's decision means <em>only that
Assange will be transferred to Sweden for
interrogation. </em>It does not mean that he will
be tried, or <em>even charged</em>. It is entirely
possible that he will be transferred to Sweden,
questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities
find that there are insufficient grounds for
prosecution. It is impossible – as it should be – to
predict how the case will unfold."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange
at this point is wanted for questioning in this case,
and has not been charged. Once he's questioned, he might
be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what
has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him
in England so mystifying, of such concern to Assange,
and is the real reason that the investigation has thus
far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert Ove
Bring has <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5235707">made
clear</a>, in the context of discussing Assange, that
"under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people
abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do so simply for
reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden,
is interrogated, then I expect the case would be
dropped, as <em>the evidence is not enough to charge
him with a crime</em>").</p>
<p>Then there's the very strange argument Green makes
about why extradition to the US would be more easily
accomplished if he's in Britain rather than Sweden. I've
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum">previously
set out</a> the reasons and supporting evidence
showing the reverse is true and won't repeat those here,
but let's look at what Green says to support his claim:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from
Britain for <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/gary-mckinnon-extradition-review-hacker">a
full seven years and counting</a>; O'Dwyer also
remains in England and is the subject of a <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/richard-odwyer-extradition-opposed-majority">popular
campaign to block his shipment to the U.S.</a>; the
NatWest Three were able to<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5160094.stm">
resist extradition to the US for four full years</a>.
These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an
extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly
complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive
Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public
debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial
proceedings in Britain over extradition.</p>
<p>It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government
cannot provide an iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange
would not be extradited to the US. That's because it is
Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the
ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British
and Swedish governments play an important role in any
extradition proceeding: they take influential positions
on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under
Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the
subsequent extradition of any individual it extradites
(meaning its consent would be needed for Sweden to send
Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what%27s_going_on%3F.html">must
formally opine</a> on whether extradition should take
place (some Swedes have<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/the-julian-assange-circus-why-is-carl-bildt-lying/">
made the case</a> that the government's position would
be dispositive).</p>
<p><b>At the very least, there is ample room for
negotiation. Both the British and Swedish governments
could – and should – take the position that to
prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of
journalism would be political crimes that are not
subject to their extradition treaties with the U.S. or
are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses.
Rather than explore any of those possible grounds for
agreement, both governments have simply refused to
negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the
Ecuadorean government over any proposals to safeguard
his rights. That refusal on the part of those
governments – and not any desire to obstruct the
investigation or evade facing those allegations – is
what led the Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was
necessary to protect Assange from political
persecution.</b></p>
<p><u><b>The complainants in Sweden have the absolute
right to have their serious allegations against
Assange investigated and legally resolved. But
Assange has the equally compelling right under
international law and treaties to be free of
political persecution: which is exactly what
prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for
life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures would be.
</b></u></p>
<p><b>It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded,
not just one.</b> The only just solution is one that
protects both. Assange's lawyers and the Ecuadorians
have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all
substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to
Sweden – today – to face those allegations while being
protected against unjust extradition to the US. It is
the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even
to consider any such proposals that have brought this
situation to the unfortunate standstill it is in.</p>
<p><b>It is incredibly telling that media attacks on
Assange do not even pay lip service to, let alone
evince any actual interest in, the profound threats to
press freedom that would come if he were extradited to
and tried in the United States.</b> In lieu of being
informed about any of this, readers and viewers are
bombarded with disturbing, and often quite disturbed,
rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That
contempt not only drowns out every important value at
stake in this case, but also any regard for the basic
facts.</p>
<p>* * * </p>
<p><strong><em>UPDATE</em></strong>: Numerous people
objected that I too readily conceded the point that
Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are
the ultimate decision-makers on extradition requests,
and the Swedish government therefore cannot provide
Assange with a guarantee that he will not be extradited
to the U.S. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/the-julian-assange-circus-why-is-carl-bildt-lying/">This
article</a> by a lawyer -- who fervently believes that
Assange should be extradited to Sweden -- makes the case
very compellingly that the Swedish government most
certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to
[my emphasis]:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed
nature, where courts and governments share the final
decision – it is not unknown for <em>governments to
reject an extradition request in spite of court
verdict allowing it</em>. . . . </p>
<p>Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that
the government may put conditions on its decision to
accept an extradition request. <em>The deciding body
is thus the government</em>, with an input by the
Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the
Supreme Court in case where the requested person
doesn't accept to be extradited.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law
to outline two possible outcomes where the target of an
extradition request challenges its validity: (1) the
Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not
legally permissible, in which case the Swedish
government is not free to extradite; (2) the Swedish
supreme court rules that extradition is legally
permissible, in which case the Swedish government is
free to decide that it will not extradite for policy or
other prudential reasons. In other words, the Swedish
judiciary has the right to <em>block</em> an
extradition request on legal grounds, but it lacks the
power to<em> compel</em> extradition; if the courts
approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still
retains the authority to decide if extradition should
take place.</p>
<p>As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish
government was an unable to offer Assange a so-called
"iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, there is
still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel
to Sweden to face these allegations; given that the
Swedish government clearly has, at the very least, a
significant role to play in the process, its advanced
position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on
the basis of WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would
be significant. But there is at least a strong argument
to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the Swedish
government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that
both Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in
order to enable him immediately to travel to Sweden to
face the sex assault allegations against him.
Independently, the British government is also clearly in
a position to contribute to those assurances, given the
need for its consent if extradition to the U.S. from
Sweden is to take place. </p>
<p>If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex
assault allegations are not being resolved the way they
should be, the refusal of these two governments even to
negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against
unjust extradition is the place to begin.</p>
<p>* * * </p>
<p><strong><em>UPDATE II</em></strong>: For even more
compelling evidence that the Swedish government is the
final decision-maker in extradition matters and does
indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would
not be extradited to the U.S. based on his journalism,
see the citations in Point 3 of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://pastehtml.com/view/c91yw7wjy.html">this
excellent reply to Green</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>