[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain
jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk
jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk
Thu Aug 23 10:21:00 EDT 2012
The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity - uncontrollable. It is certainly no tool of the State and as contemptuous of government or opposition (depending on which one you read) as of Assange.
Surely you are not suggesting prior restraint or censorship?
J.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-----Original Message-----
From: Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to
co-operate' with Britain
[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 toresist 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>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120823/4045364f/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list