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

Thu Aug 23 06:43:49 EDT 2012

The kid that leaked the war stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120823/14bbfdf8/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