[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 11:56:09 EDT 2012
You are correct, I am not suggesting censorship - but interesting that
you ask.
What I am merely asking for on this list is respect and tolerance for
difference.
While there are many things that are much better handled in the North
(including finance and freedom of expression, well up to very recently)
there is a need for constant vigilence like on illegal wars (where the
remarkable consensus of opinion of this "free" press was duped by a
bunch of liars doped up on false evidence) or on the financial crisis
(where those who challenged the "fundamentals" were silenced, treated
like clowns or subject to namecalling - Doctors Doom - Roubini, Baker
etc)...
Now it is all very well to be contrite afterwards, after "consent has
been manufactured" (in the Chomskian/Herman sense) and damage done, in
civil society the ticket of entry ought to be reason... so toleration of
difference is not too much to ask for, and that claims by one side
cannot be sustained merely by the calling of silencing of "the other" as
has been attempted on this list...
What ought to be clear is that for some in the "South" and perhaps some
in the "North" is that American or Northern Exceptionalism is not
"legitimate" no matter how "effective."
On 2012/08/23 04:21 PM, jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
> *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Date: *Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200
> *To: *<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *ReplyTo: * 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/e1177dec/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