<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> [Emphasis added...]<br>
<br>
<a 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 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 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
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
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 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
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html">even</a><a
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
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
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
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
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
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 href="http://www.walkleys.com/news/5131/">awarded
its highest distinction</a> (for "Most Outstanding
Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, it <a
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
href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks_10/">long
noted</a> this revealing paradox. The person who (along
with whomever is <a
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
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
href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/">on
the US and its allies</a>, but also some of the <a
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
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
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
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
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
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
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jan/13/pinochet.chile6">refused
to extradite</a> the <a
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
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
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
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
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
href="http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/the_list.html">other
commentators</a> have <a
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
href="http://pastehtml.com/view/c91yw7wjy.html">this
excellent reply to Green</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>