[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain

Thu Aug 23 06:34:26 EDT 2012

The Guardian article cited by Riaz in its third paragraph uses these words

> one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare,
> liberty and even<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html>
>  life<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html> to
> meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national
> security state (and those of its obedient allies<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/un-torture-investigator-warns-uk-over.php>)
> depends

to describe Julian Assange.
Whatever happened to Bradley Manning?
Deirdre

On 23 August 2012 04:43, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

>  [Emphasis added...]
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt
>
>  The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange
>
> 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
>
>    -  Glenn Greenwald <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald>
>     - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, **Wednesday 22 August**
>
>
> Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris
> Helgren/Reuters
>
> *(updated below - Update II)*
>
> Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New
> Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing
> that he would use his objective legal expertise<http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition>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."
>
> In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire
> British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher<http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/human-rights/2012/06/desperation-julian-assange>,
> and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitated<http://gawker.com/5936600/>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.
>
> 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 even<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html>life<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html>to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national
> security state (and those of its obedient allies<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/un-torture-investigator-warns-uk-over.php>)
> 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?
>
> In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video,
> the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared
> a secret report <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html> which
> proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to
> destroy<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S64J1rmc53I/AAAAAAAACWI/wiLUSVixG5U/s1600/pentagon2.png>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 so often
> the case<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=all>– they have so harmoniously joined in common cause.
>
> Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited personal
> animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put it<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize>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 – awarded its highest distinction<http://www.walkleys.com/news/5131/>(for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011,
> it cited<http://www.walkleys.com/2011winners#most-outstanding-contribution-to-journalism>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 *more scoops
> in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime*."
>
> When it comes to the American media, I've long noted<http://www.salon.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks_10/>this revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the
> heroic leaker<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/bradley-manning-deserves-a-medal>)
> 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 terrorist
> by high U.S. officials<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/joe-biden-wikileaks-assange-high-tech-terrorist_n_798838.html>– 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 on the US and its allies<http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/>,
> but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world<http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com.br/2011/10/bill-keller-on-wikileaks-cables.html>).
>
>
> 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
> superb analysis<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/why-us-is-out-to-get-assange>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."
>
> 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 claiming<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=all>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 an article<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?hp>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").
>
> A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's
> interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this wisdom<http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-why-do-we-buy-julian-assanges-oneman-psychodrama-7869897.html>:
> "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 include a quote<http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/nyt-flushes-assange-charges.html>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).
>
> *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.*
>
> 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.
>
> It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused
> to extradite <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jan/13/pinochet.chile6>the mass
> rapist<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/victims-of-pinochets-police-prepare-to-reveal-details-of-rape-and-torture-1183793.html>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 sudden interest<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/human-rights-critics-russia-ecuador>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:
>
> *"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?"*
>
> 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.
>
> * * * * *
>
> 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 this
> brilliant 2008 post<http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001990.html>,
> in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based
> competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can).
>
> *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.*
>
> Then there's the ideological cause. *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 to support the attack on Iraq<http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/>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.*
>
> * * * * *
>
> 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, *are "rape apologists." *
>
> *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.* 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."
>
> *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 some
> prominent American<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html>and other
> commentators <http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/the_list.html>have called
> for this <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRMV7zi4h_k>).*
>
> *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean
> government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that he faces those
> allegations in Sweden. 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 wilfuly blind could
> deny is serious and real<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html>.
> *
>
> In their *New York Times op-ed this week<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?ref=opinion>,
> 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." *That's because, they note, Assange has
> repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to
> travel *today* 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.
>
> Time and again<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/rafael-correa-britain-julian-assange_n_1820515.html>,
> "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." *Both 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.*
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different
> story. *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 wrote on
> 28 February 2011<http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/assange-eaw-sexual-sweden>when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my
> emphasis]:
>
> "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will
> be extradited, *still less that he will be charged*, tried, or convicted.
> Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden may decide
> either not to continue or to *interview him while he remains in England*.
> However, unless some such external event intervenes, Assange will be
> shortly extradited to Sweden *to be questioned* about an allegation of
> rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful
> coercion."
>
> 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 said the same<http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/justice-for-sweden>[my emphasis]:
>
> "The UK supreme court's decision means *only that Assange will be
> transferred to Sweden for interrogation. *It does not mean that he will
> be tried, or *even charged*. 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."
>
> 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 made clear<https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5235707>,
> 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 *the evidence
> is not enough to charge him with a crime*").
>
> 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 previously set out<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum>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:
>
> 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.
>
> The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full
> seven years and counting<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/gary-mckinnon-extradition-review-hacker>;
> O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign
> to block his shipment to the U.S.<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/richard-odwyer-extradition-opposed-majority>;
> the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full
> years <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5160094.stm>. 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.
>
> 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 must
> formally opine<http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what%27s_going_on%3F.html>on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the case<http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/the-julian-assange-circus-why-is-carl-bildt-lying/>that the government's position would be dispositive).
>
> *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.*
>
> *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. *
>
> *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* 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.
>
> *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.* 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.
>
> * * *
>
> *UPDATE*: 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. This article<http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/the-julian-assange-circus-why-is-carl-bildt-lying/>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]:
>
> Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and
> governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for *governments
> to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it*.
> . . .
>
> Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put
> conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. *The
> deciding body is thus the government*, 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.
>
> 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 *block* an extradition request on
> legal grounds, but it lacks the power to* compel* extradition; if the
> courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the
> authority to decide if extradition should take place.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> * * *
>
> *UPDATE II*: 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 this
> excellent reply to Green <http://pastehtml.com/view/c91yw7wjy.html>.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120823/c70d382a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t