Uk Threaten to storm Ecuador Embassy for Assange

Laminations · 29-08-2012 3:29pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Some of the more noteable, semi-recent examples displaying very personalized issues with Assange, and general sneering from some Guardian authors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/who-is-julian-assange
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-cohen-julian-assange-paranoia (this one in particular was ridiculous, especially the attack on Glenn Greenwald; this article garnered support from key Guardian writers offsite, such as James Ball, David Leigh, Luke Harding and others)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks

Assange is, after exhausting the legal avenues, ignoring the judgements of the UK courts, avoiding extradition to face charges in Sweden and using some possible extradition to the US (which he is protected against) as reason to deny justice to his alleged victims. How does one de-personalise their reporting on this? By ignoring Assange's personal responsibilities to live by the law like his supporters seem capable of doing?

One of the primary examples of the Guardian's unbalanced reporting on WikiLeaks that I recall, was almost exactly this time last year, when the unredacted diplomatic cables were leaked (which were previously being slowly released, in redacted form, by the Guardian/WikiLeaks and other newspapers).

Responsibility for this was shared between WikiLeaks and the Guardian; WikiLeaks accidentally distributed the encrypted cable archive, which nobody outside of WikiLeaks had any idea about (it was a heavily encrypted file named xyz). The Guardian later went on to publish the password in a book (which is a ridiculously idiotic thing to do), not knowing the encrypted file was distributed.

It took a long time after publishing of the book, but eventually someone figured it out; when that happened, the Guardian put sole responsibility on WikiLeaks for this, refusing to accept even partial blame for the unredacted cables being released (and the fallout from this is what kept the catfight between WikiLeaks and the Guardian going up until recently).

So the Guardian was idiotic but Wikileaks are great? What was wrong with the Guardian printing the password seeing as you are all arguing that we have a right to know everything and that Wikileaks is justified in publishing anything and everything? I'd agree they were both to blame. So Wikileaks IS at fault, Wikileaks IS NOT entitled to publish anything it pleases. Do you agree?? (EDIT: it appears below you do so don't take these comments as directed at you)

So who determines when Wikileaks (and the Guardian) crosses this line? The courts. So the US is perfectly entitled to take a case against Wikileaks and Wikileaks is perfectly entitled to mount a defense - like the case of the Pentagon Papers leak. They (and Assange) ARE NOT entitled to ignore or avoid the courts or demand some veto on prosecution.

Also, in relation to the Guardian reporting, I've asked for examples and quotes. Linking me to a plethora of articles isn't helpful. What in those articles is incorrect? You've made the claim that the Guardian have been unbalanced and published hatchet jobs on Assange and Wikileaks. Please quote some of their claims and tell how they are inaccurate.

Could you provide some examples where any of Glenn Greenwalds writing on WikiLeaks has been at fault?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ (pre-Guardian writing)

I've never made the claim that it has, I'd need to read his stuff and then make up my mind and pick the parts I disagree with, with some argument as to why he is wrong.

Posting information publicly without vetting it first to prevent harm to people is wrong, period; WikiLeaks (in the case above, with contribution from the Guardian) have screwed this up royally on several occasions, and the organization has generally been run very unprofessionally.

So we agree. Then my argument is with other posters who think we have a god given right to know everything, unvetted regardless of public interest. If Wikileaks have screwed up, should they face court for these screw ups or do you think they should be immune from prosecution? Do you agree with Assange demanding a guarantee that America won't extradite?

Thankfully there is no indication that anyone has come to harm due to this negligence, and going forward WikiLeaks needs to be held to a pretty high standard in properly vetting the information they disclose.

Held by who? They (and their leader) won't submit themselves to the judgement of a court. If I drive recklessly down a pedestrian road I can't just make the determination myself that nobody was hurt, therefore case closed. The impact of their negligence needs to be decided in court.

They were on the right path with this for the diplomatic cables (showing that they had learned from past mistakes on the Afghanistan/Iraq war logs), properly redacting information; however, the organizations (and contributing journalistic outlets) internal operational security is clearly still somewhat ad-hoc and a mess, so for all future releases they need to keep their shít together in order to properly protect both sources and those affected by the information they release.

Look you make a lot of sense and I don't disagree with you. Read the thread and see the comments from posters I do disagree with. Points like 'Wikileaks have the right to publish anything' and 'state secrets are bad and only protect officials'. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WIKILEAKS REPORTING ILLEGAL ACTS.

In the end, it is definitely right to release information that is in the public interest, but there is a responsibility to make sure it is properly vetted and redacted to prevent harm; once those precautions and due diligence are taken care of, it cannot be said that releasing information in the public interest is wrong.

I completely agree. But when it is disputed, who determines whats in the public interest? I believe that's the role of the courts. Others here argue that Wikileaks should not have to fight its case in any court.

Manic Moran · 29-08-2012 3:47pm

It took a long time after publishing of the book, but eventually someone figured it out; when that happened, the Guardian put sole responsibility on WikiLeaks for this, refusing to accept even partial blame for the unredacted cables being released (and the fallout from this is what kept the catfight between WikiLeaks and the Guardian going up until recently).

I'm inclined to agree with the Guardian. Rule one of passwords: Don't tell anyone your password.

Did not wikileaks/assange place the blame for the leaks on the US government, saying it's their fault they had weak internal security systems? I don't see any significant difference, except that the Joint Chiefs didn't voluntarily give any information to outside entities.

Mr.Micro · 29-08-2012 4:25pm

Laminations wrote: »

Bizarre. Whether you buy women's lingerie on the internet on in a department store, it is nobodies business. It is not wrongdoing, it is not 'in the public interest'. You really under-appreciate the need for secrets and lies, to protect ourselves and others and to maintain a private life. Companies, institutions and even governments need privacy to conduct themselves - that is not me saying that wrongdoing should remain private, that should be exposed, through investigation that is targeted and purposeful, not some catch all net.

Of course there is a need for some secrecy. One suit does not fit all and Governments frequently hide behind secrecy even for their wrongdoings and sins. That is not acceptable. We often hear political candidates talking about open Government and transparency. All talk mostly IMO.

Mr.Micro · 29-08-2012 4:31pm

Laminations wrote: »

That's a bizarre view. So once I embarrass you I'm doing some public good because I'm obviously exposing something bad about you?

Embarrassment comes from more than the exposure of wrongdoing. It can come from the publicising of some self-conscious trait, or some perceived weakness or something that was said in one context privately and then interpreted in the public sphere. What is 'bad' about the US ambassador in Ecuador expressing his concerns about corruption and media interference to his peers and superiors in internal private memos? Why should we be informed of this?

I suppose you never talk about your friends behind their backs? Scale this up to national level and you have a dynamic of diplomacy.

Its one thing talking about it, gossip, but another when it becomes an official cable. What deems this gossip or chit chat so important that the officials deem it to be noted. Goes with the job IMO and will perhaps make these people a little less brash and more diplomatic in their comments. Keep their personal feelings opinions off record.

Laminations · 29-08-2012 4:41pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its one thing talking about it, gossip, but another when it becomes an official cable. What deems this gossip or chit chat so important that the officials deem it to be noted. Goes with the job IMO and will perhaps make these people a little less brash and more diplomatic in their comments. Keep their personal feelings opinions off record.

It is not a personal feeling. It is the US staffs' assessment of Ecuadorean (or whatever countries) systems. The cables are not gossip, they are important information sharing means. They are private, i.e. not for Ecuadorean ears, not for your ears. My reference to gossip was the public 'need to know' about the content of all cables (I'm not disputing the fact there may be a public interest in the content of some). Most would just be fodder for gossip. Diplomats need to be diplomatic in their public comments, but they need private channels to communicate effectively. And diplomatic cables are not public record, they are meant to be private channels

Mr.Micro · 29-08-2012 4:59pm

Laminations wrote: »

It is not a personal feeling. It is the US staffs' assessment of Ecuadorean (or whatever countries) systems. The cables are not gossip, they are important information sharing means. They are private, i.e. not for Ecuadorean ears, not for your ears. My reference to gossip was the public 'need to know' about the content of all cables (I'm not disputing the fact there may be a public interest in the content of some). Most would just be fodder for gossip. Diplomats need to be diplomatic in their public comments, but they need private channels to communicate effectively. And diplomatic cables are not public record, they are meant to be private channels

Fair enough.

KyussBishop · 30-08-2012 2:33am

Laminations wrote: »

Assange is, after exhausting the legal avenues, ignoring the judgements of the UK courts, avoiding extradition to face charges in Sweden and using some possible extradition to the US (which he is protected against) as reason to deny justice to his alleged victims. How does one de-personalise their reporting on this? By ignoring Assange's personal responsibilities to live by the law like his supporters seem capable of doing?

That is false, and presumes to factually know Assange's reasons (reasons in direct opposition to what has been stated publically), when you can not know that; the simple fact is, this could be ended tomorrow by Sweden giving Assange a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US (which is well within the power of the Swedish government to do).

Assange has stated clearly his willingness to go to Sweden, if that guarantee is made.

Laminations wrote: »

So who determines when Wikileaks (and the Guardian) crosses this line? The courts. So the US is perfectly entitled to take a case against Wikileaks and Wikileaks is perfectly entitled to mount a defense - like the case of the Pentagon Papers leak. They (and Assange) ARE NOT entitled to ignore or avoid the courts or demand some veto on prosecution.

Which courts, and which laws are we talking about here? (note that this is completely separate to the Sweden case, this is about the cables)
Assange is not subject to US law, and in publishing the data he has not broken any laws in the country he was in at the time, thus there are no valid grounds for US extradition; there are no principles for bringing Assange to court which do not equally apply to the New York Times either (who contributed in publishing the cables).

Any action defended by journalistic principles should definitely not end up in court, and while the Guardian and WikiLeaks are responsible for the leak of the unredacted cables, they still performed their journalistic due diligence in redacting them to begin with, and neither distributing the cables in an encrypted file (by WikiLeaks), nor publishing a password in a book (by the Guardian) are a crime, unless performed by the same entity/group, knowing that the unredacted cables would be released.

To justify any US extradition, you have to show what crime was committed, and specifically the laws that were breached (and US law does not apply to Assange).

Laminations wrote: »

Also, in relation to the Guardian reporting, I've asked for examples and quotes. Linking me to a plethora of articles isn't helpful. What in those articles is incorrect? You've made the claim that the Guardian have been unbalanced and published hatchet jobs on Assange and Wikileaks. Please quote some of their claims and tell how they are inaccurate.

I spent a fair bit of time grabbing those specific articles, they are not long and are perfect examples; I'm not now going to pick through them for quotes, read just the Nick Cohen one if you want a particularly good example.

Laminations wrote: »

So we agree. Then my argument is with other posters who think we have a god given right to know everything, unvetted regardless of public interest. If Wikileaks have screwed up, should they face court for these screw ups or do you think they should be immune from prosecution? Do you agree with Assange demanding a guarantee that America won't extradite?

Again, by what grounds or laws do you deem extradition justified?

You seem to agree that extradition to the US is a legitimate possibility, and in that case, when you look at the ongoing persecution of whistleblowers in the US and human rights abuses (including Bradley Manning being subject to conditions that amount to torture), there is every ground for Assange to seek asylum from Ecuador.

So basically, if there is any acceptance of extradition to the US being a legitimate possibility, then it automatically opens up those arguments justifying asylum.
If you don't accept extradition as being a legitimate possibility, then there is no valid reason for Sweden not to grant the guarantee that he won't be extradited.

Laminations wrote: »

Held by who? They (and their leader) won't submit themselves to the judgement of a court. If I drive recklessly down a pedestrian road I can't just make the determination myself that nobody was hurt, therefore case closed. The impact of their negligence needs to be decided in court.

Absence of proof of guilt by a court of law means innocence; if you say any harm was caused, you have to prove it, otherwise it is valid to say no harm was caused.

Laminations wrote: »

Look you make a lot of sense and I don't disagree with you. Read the thread and see the comments from posters I do disagree with. Points like 'Wikileaks have the right to publish anything' and 'state secrets are bad and only protect officials'. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WIKILEAKS REPORTING ILLEGAL ACTS.

I completely agree. But when it is disputed, who determines whats in the public interest? I believe that's the role of the courts. Others here argue that Wikileaks should not have to fight its case in any court.

Fair enough, was mainly making my own position on WikiLeaks clear.

I think that when information is in the public interest, and there has been due diligence performed in properly redacting it and protecting people (which can only be countered by proof of harm, not proof of secrecy), there must be an absolute right to be free from prosecution, and that right must be put down in law in completely unambiguous terms (and typically is specifically codified for publishers).

If you have anything less than that, if there is any ambiguity at all, then that opens up the possibility of judicial abuse against publishers, and if that ever happens then it immediately causes a chilling effect on journalism which is irreparable and unacceptable.

Particularly, the most unacceptable form of this is where one countries laws stretch beyond their own borders, and are used to punish publishers from other countries; that would create an enormous worldwide chilling effect, where you would be at the whim of any undemocratic government.

KyussBishop · 30-08-2012 2:38am

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with the Guardian. Rule one of passwords: Don't tell anyone your password.

Did not wikileaks/assange place the blame for the leaks on the US government, saying it's their fault they had weak internal security systems? I don't see any significant difference, except that the Joint Chiefs didn't voluntarily give any information to outside entities.

It was the Guardian that 'told' people the password though?

Both the US government and Guardian/WikiLeaks are certainly guilty of abysmal operational security though.

Laminations · 30-08-2012 10:07am

KyussBishop wrote: »

That is false, and presumes to factually know Assange's reasons (reasons in direct opposition to what has been stated publically), when you can not know that; the simple fact is, this could be ended tomorrow by Sweden giving Assange a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US (which is well within the power of the Swedish government to do).

Assange has stated clearly his willingness to go to Sweden, if that guarantee is made.

It is the Swedish courts (with protection from the UK courts and ECHR) that would decide his extradition to the US, if they were to request it while he was in Sweden.

Which courts, and which laws are we talking about here? (note that this is completely separate to the Sweden case, this is about the cables)
Assange is not subject to US law, and in publishing the data he has not broken any laws in the country he was in at the time, thus there are no valid grounds for US extradition; there are no principles for bringing Assange to court which do not equally apply to the New York Times either (who contributed in publishing the cables).

Swedish courts if he is in Sweden.

Any action defended by journalistic principles should definitely not end up in court,

ridiculous statement. I bash uou over the head and claim a defence of journalistic principles, and that means no court?? But youll say, well thats silly, thats obviously not covered by such a defense so it'd go to court. So what about when its no so clear cut?? Does it still not go to court because you think it is obviously covered? Are you and his supporters not the deciders on who should and shouldnt face charges??

To justify any US extradition, you have to show what crime was committed, and specifically the laws that were breached (and US law does not apply to Assange).

Yes I'd expect if the US requested extradition that they'd have to justify it. I'd expect that would fail. But I don't preempt that not do I think it should be decided outside court.
You don't want to even give them the opportunity to try and make a case. Assange would have his journalistic principles defence but he shouldn't get to use that to avoid court.

Again, by what grounds or laws do you deem extradition justified?

Really I think this is the part of my point you are missing. It is not up to you or me or Assange to decide if extradition is justified. It's not up to the US to decide that. It is up to them to make a request and then make their case and then the courts (Swedish, UK and ECHR) will decide if it's justified. For the record again, I don't think it's justified, but the possibility of it going to court (which is where it should be decided on) is a terrible reason to avoid going to Sweden. It's trying to deny the legal avenues the US may have because there is a possibility the case may not go your way (a possibility which exists in every case). If we were all to decide whether court was for us, based on our belief that our defence (be it journalistic principles or self defence or whatever) was adequate then the system of law would collapse. It's not your place (or my place) to decide his defence is robust.

You seem to agree that extradition to the US is a legitimate possibility, and in that case, when you look at the ongoing persecution of whistleblowers in the US and human rights abuses (including Bradley Manning being subject to conditions that amount to torture), there is every ground for Assange to seek asylum from Ecuador.

Yes it's a possibility but highly improbable. As for the ongoing persecution of whistle lowers being reason not to extradite, I'd agree but maintain its for the courts to decide.

So basically, if there is any acceptance of extradition to the US being a legitimate possibility, then it automatically opens up those arguments justifying asylum.
If you don't accept extradition as being a legitimate possibility, then there is no valid reason for Sweden not to grant the guarantee that he won't be extradited.

Sweden cannot preempt the judgement of a court case that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen.

Absence of proof of guilt by a court of law means innocence; if you say any harm was caused, you have to prove it, otherwise it is valid to say no harm was caused.

Yes, prove it in court, at an extradition hearing....I'm holding the US to that standard, you are denying them their right to take it to court to even attempt to prove it, because you with your judges hat on have already decided they don't have a case. You want a government to guarantee that any case they have won't be heard, or given a fair hearing.

See my point?

KyussBishop · 30-08-2012 12:37pm

Laminations wrote:

It is the Swedish courts (with protection from the UK courts and ECHR) that would decide his extradition to the US, if they were to request it while he was in Sweden.

The Swedish government can override extradition requests.

Laminations wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

Any action defended by journalistic principles should definitely not end up in court,

ridiculous statement. I bash uou over the head and claim a defence of journalistic principles, and that means no court?? But youll say, well thats silly, thats obviously not covered by such a defense so it'd go to court. So what about when its no so clear cut?? Does it still not go to court because you think it is obviously covered? Are you and his supporters not the deciders on who should and shouldnt face charges??

You're stretching my statement there; there are clear protections placed upon publishers and whistleblowers, and if they are brought to court it must be under a definite charge (e.g. libel, or some other well defined breach).

If there's a charge to bring he should see his day in court, but he should not be subject to arbitrary court action or extraditions to that aim (I'm talking in the context of the cables here and potential US extradition, not the sex assault allegations); it's important that whatever court action is taken against him, is taken out transparently (not under sealed indictment), and has a specific charge.

Anyway, I suspect that (despite my wording), this is something we'd end up mostly agreeing on, after enumerating various scenarios/conditions; whatever charges are placed forward, he should see through, but with adequate safeguards against potential persecution.

Laminations wrote:

Yes I'd expect if the US requested extradition that they'd have to justify it. I'd expect that would fail. But I don't preempt that not do I think it should be decided outside court.
You don't want to even give them the opportunity to try and make a case. Assange would have his journalistic principles defence but he shouldn't get to use that to avoid court.

The problem here, is the likely politicization of the extradition process; people have been right to point out Swedens participation in extraordinary rendition, and thus culpability in the resulting human rights abuses, as well as the extremely unusual handling of the case against Assange.
All of that provides sufficient concern for Assange to seek asylum, and the Swedish government do have the power to guarantee he won't be extradited (and have every ground to provide that guarantee, in light of US abuses I outlined in my previous post).

Laminations wrote:

Really I think this is the part of my point you are missing. It is not up to you or me or Assange to decide if extradition is justified. It's not up to the US to decide that. It is up to them to make a request and then make their case and then the courts (Swedish, UK and ECHR) will decide if it's justified. For the record again, I don't think it's justified, but the possibility of it going to court (which is where it should be decided on) is a terrible reason to avoid going to Sweden. It's trying to deny the legal avenues the US may have because there is a possibility the case may not go your way (a possibility which exists in every case). If we were all to decide whether court was for us, based on our belief that our defence (be it journalistic principles or self defence or whatever) was adequate then the system of law would collapse. It's not your place (or my place) to decide his defence is robust.

I'm an opponent of anything which obstructs the legal process taking place here, but I think a successful extradition request to the US is a real potential (in other words, there is sufficient doubt that he would get a fair extradition trial in Sweden, due to past actions of the Swedish government), and I think that is a valid grounds for seeking asylum.
It must be remembered also, that Assange is perfectly within his legal rights to seek asylum, and perfectly within Ecuador's rights to grant it; they are committed to finding a resolution to this, and it is not in a deadlock (yet).

I don't sit comfortably with all of this, I definitely think he should go to Sweden and see his day in court on the rape allegations, and I feel quite ambiguous over a wide range of areas surrounding the whole ordeal, but for the moment I think the safety he is provided in the Ecuadorian embassy, and Ecuadorian governments efforts to resolve this diplomatically, are a good idea.
There is (in my judgment) legitimate danger of Assange ending up in the US (i.e. a legitimate danger of the legal process failing him), and there are ample paths for sorting this out diplomatically, so (for the time being) asylum seems a prudent measure for trying to prevent that danger.

Laminations wrote:

Yes it's a possibility but highly improbable. As for the ongoing persecution of whistle lowers being reason not to extradite, I'd agree but maintain its for the courts to decide.

Okey, but the Ecuadorian government has deemed it a legitimate possibility, not improbable; they have expended significant resources and time coming to their conclusion, so they have examined the reality of the dangers better than any of us.

Laminations wrote:

Sweden cannot preempt the judgement of a court case that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen.

They can provide the guarantee that if such a case comes up, they will reject extradition; this is partially written about here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

"Swedish extradition law is written to ensure that if an extradition is to occur, Swedish government officials, not its courts, are the final decision-makers on whether that should take place."

Laminations wrote:

Yes, prove it in court, at an extradition hearing....I'm holding the US to that standard, you are denying them their right to take it to court to even attempt to prove it, because you with your judges hat on have already decided they don't have a case. You want a government to guarantee that any case they have won't be heard, or given a fair hearing.

See my point?

I see your point but it's still valid to say no harm has come from the WikiLeaks releases (where this line of conversation came from), because in the absence of proof of harm, it is legitimate to say there doesn't seem to have been harm caused; you don't need this to have gone through court to say that.

An additional note: Any extradition request by the US must not be based on laws unique to the US, he must have breached law within Sweden as well, otherwise that risks turning the extradition process everywhere, into a system which makes people subject to the laws of (potentially) every country in the world (though more restricted to ones with extradition treaties).

JustinDee · 30-08-2012 12:59pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Swedish government can override extradition requests

The Swedish government cannot "override" the decision of their (Hoeyeste Domstolen) Supreme Court. Thats the whole point of the court system in a democratic country.

getz · 30-08-2012 1:05pm

assange had been under house arrest in the UK for 8 months,if the USA had wanted to extract him they would have had plenty of time to do it,the UK has a very good record of extracting people to the USA,assange is just using the american angle as a smoke screen he knows if he goes to swedon he will go down

hatrickpatrick · 30-08-2012 2:01pm

Laminations wrote: »

It is contradictory that the poster thinks America will not give Assange fair trial due to political embarrassment while at the same time using the protection of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of the Pentagon papers (which also caused huge embarrassment) but in which the courts found in favour of those who leaked showing themselves not to be puppets of the US government.

Different court, different time... The US Supreme Court has, post 9/11, been extremely disappointing with regard to state secrets and civil rights. Look at how they have treated those attempting to get a fair trial in terms of waterboarding etc, for example. Not trying to be paranoid, that's just the way it is. Perhaps that will change with the next round of appointees but to be honest I have very little faith in the current setup. If Daniel Ellsberg was on trial tomorrow, I would happily bet good money on him being thrown to the wolves.

Referring to this case would suggest Assange would get a fair trial in the US if it goes that far. But to suggest he shouldn't face trial just because you or I think the leaks are not a breach of national security belittles the position of the courts in society to determine these things.

Does it? Bradley Manning has been held in the most utterly despicable and borderline illegal conditions pre-trial with his eventual trial being persistently delayed and put off. This is already in breach of a constitutional right to a speedy trial. As I say, the America of yesteryear is not the America of today and these are, it would seem, very dark times indeed for civil rights.

Laminations · 30-08-2012 2:25pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Swedish government can override extradition requests.

After a Swedish court has arbitrated on it. And they cannot override in cases where extradition is not allowed by the courts. This is the polar opposite of extraordinary rendition, it is the government bypassing the courts system but rather than to hand a person over to a foreign power, you want them to prevent any arbitration on extradition.

If there's a charge to bring he should see his day in court, but he should not be subject to arbitrary court action or extraditions to that aim (I'm talking in the context of the cables here and potential US extradition, not the sex assault allegations); it's important that whatever court action is taken against him, is taken out transparently (not under sealed indictment), and has a specific charge.

No request for extradition has yet been made, so there is as of yet no charge. But imagine the US wanted him extradited for a breach of the Johannesburg principles or of their espionage act? The veracity of this charge needs to be decided in a court, not just by people who say he shouldn't go to court because they don't think the charge is legitimate.

The problem here, is the likely politicization of the extradition process; people have been right to point out Swedens participation in extraordinary rendition, and thus culpability in the resulting human rights abuses, as well as the extremely unusual handling of the case against Assange.
All of that provides sufficient concern for Assange to seek asylum, and the Swedish government do have the power to guarantee he won't be extradited (and have every ground to provide that guarantee, in light of US abuses I outlined in my previous post).

I'm an opponent of anything which obstructs the legal process taking place here, but I think a successful extradition request to the US is a real potential (in other words, there is sufficient doubt that he would get a fair extradition trial in Sweden, due to past actions of the Swedish government), and I think that is a valid grounds for seeking asylum.
It must be remembered also, that Assange is perfectly within his legal rights to seek asylum, and perfectly within Ecuador's rights to grant it; they are committed to finding a resolution to this, and it is not in a deadlock (yet).

I've posted up Sweden's standing in world rankings on corruption and justice. If he cannot get a fair extradition trial there he cannot get one anywhere. To use the governments past action to besmirch the Swedish courts system is odd. Also the guarantee cannot be given. It would involve a grave interference in the justice system there. And you'd quickly recognise that if people were calling for a government to guarantee a person would be extradited before they had their day in court. You will gladly deny the US their day in court, and their right to make a case, because you are afraid they may win.

There is (in my judgment) legitimate danger of Assange ending up in the US (i.e. a legitimate danger of the legal process failing him), and there are ample paths for sorting this out diplomatically, so (for the time being) asylum seems a prudent measure for trying to prevent that danger.

Yeah Peter Darragh Quinn reckons he won't get a fair trial here so he's just sitting up north ignoring the courts system. This is Sweden, it is not some tin-pot dictatorship. Suggesting that he won't get a fair trial, when he is covered under Swedish law, UK law and protected by the ECHR, is totally paranoid.

Okey, but the Ecuadorian government has deemed it a legitimate possibility, not improbable; they have expended significant resources and time coming to their conclusion, so they have examined the reality of the dangers better than any of us.

So you take the past actions of the Swedish government to question their integrity even though that Scandinavian country tops most rankings of openness, democracy, fairness etc. but you then cite the determinations of the Ecuadorean government as if they are some sort of moral authority, and arbitrator of fairness in the world?? Ecuador has examined the reality of the dangers better than the Swedish courts will? or better than the ECHR will? Really?

They can provide the guarantee that if such a case comes up, they will reject extradition; this is partially written about here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

"Swedish extradition law is written to ensure that if an extradition is to occur, Swedish government officials, not its courts, are the final decision-makers on whether that should take place."

You must understand the importance of the word 'final' there? In sport, the referee's decisions regarding facts connected with play are final. That doesn't mean the ref can preempt the judgement of the Television Match Official, if there is a protocol to confer with the official first.

I see your point but it's still valid to say no harm has come from the WikiLeaks releases (where this line of conversation came from), because in the absence of proof of harm, it is legitimate to say there doesn't seem to have been harm caused; you don't need this to have gone through court to say that.

If the US were to request extradition, I would expect it to be based on a charge, and I'd expect them to prevent some proof to back that up. Your point is that because they haven't presented proof to the public (or at least you don't see any proof) that they shouldn't be allowed go to court at all. Yes the current situation is that no harm has been caused. That does not prevent the US from requesting extradition and presenting their case. If it is weak and they cannot show harm, they lose.

An additional note: Any extradition request by the US must not be based on laws unique to the US, he must have breached law within Sweden as well, otherwise that risks turning the extradition process everywhere, into a system which makes people subject to the laws of (potentially) every country in the world (though more restricted to ones with extradition treaties).

On the contrary, with modern technology, you can interfere with the affairs of another country without ever stepping on their soil. Countries need to have cooperation and regard for international law, which recognises a countries right to national security. It would still be up to America to demonstrate how Assange and Wikileaks threatened US national security.

In your world of non-cooperate separate legal jurisdictions I could from a particularly lax country engage in cyber warfare and send out Anthrax parcels to any other country and be protected from extradition because I never 'stepped on their soil'. Your system of international justice and policing is for an antiquated age.

Laminations · 30-08-2012 2:28pm

If Sweden is so dangerous for Assange, in terms of sending him to the US, why then did he move there (post the cables leak) and attempt to get a Swedish residence permit?

Laminations · 30-08-2012 2:31pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Different court, different time... The US Supreme Court has, post 9/11, been extremely disappointing with regard to state secrets and civil rights. Look at how they have treated those attempting to get a fair trial in terms of waterboarding etc, for example. Not trying to be paranoid, that's just the way it is. Perhaps that will change with the next round of appointees but to be honest I have very little faith in the current setup. If Daniel Ellsberg was on trial tomorrow, I would happily bet good money on him being thrown to the wolves.

So the America of the past is gone and has no resemblance or bearing of their actions now..... but the Sweden of the past (the one that engaged in extraordinary renditions) in a legitimate barometer on which to gauge the governments and courts integrity?

Does it? Bradley Manning has been held in the most utterly despicable and borderline illegal conditions pre-trial with his eventual trial being persistently delayed and put off. This is already in breach of a constitutional right to a speedy trial. As I say, the America of yesteryear is not the America of today and these are, it would seem, very dark times indeed for civil rights.

Bradley Manning is a different case to Assange (not that I condone his treatment). But he is a military man, under military law and is he not facing military courts?

Laminations · 30-08-2012 2:43pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

They can provide the guarantee that if such a case comes up, they will reject extradition; this is partially written about here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

Just a bit more on this as it is still being debated by legal experts.

https://twitter.com/Klamberg/status/239028648424898560

Klamberg claims that the NS article is misquoting him.

http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html

juan.kerr · 30-08-2012 2:44pm

Laminations wrote: »

If Sweden is so dangerous for Assange, in terms of sending him to the US, why then did he move there (post the cables leak) and attempt to get a Swedish residence permit?

Because he hadn't committed the sexual assaults at that point so he didn't need a smoke screen yet?

steve9859 · 30-08-2012 3:15pm

juan.kerr wrote: »

Because he hadn't committed the sexual assaults at that point so he didn't need a smoke screen yet?

yep....he went to Sweden happily enough....engaged in some sexual acts that he realised had the potential to land him in trouble....so did a runner....ending up seeking asylum in the Ecaudor embassy.

As far as I can see, they are the only FACTS in this whole episode so far. The rest is conjecture and innuendo.

KyussBishop · 30-08-2012 3:58pm

JustinDee wrote: »

The Swedish government cannot "override" the decision of their (Hoeyeste Domstolen) Supreme Court. Thats the whole point of the court system in a democratic country.

I've provided a source outlaying that the Swedish government is capable of guaranteeing Assange can not be extradited, provide a countering source.

Laminations wrote:

After a Swedish court has arbitrated on it. And they cannot override in cases where extradition is not allowed by the courts. This is the polar opposite of extraordinary rendition, it is the government bypassing the courts system but rather than to hand a person over to a foreign power, you want them to prevent any arbitration on extradition.
...
You must understand the importance of the word 'final' there? In sport, the referee's decisions regarding facts connected with play are final. That doesn't mean the ref can preempt the judgement of the Television Match Official, if there is a protocol to confer with the official first.

Collating a couple of quotes here; in the end, this means the Swedish government still has the effective ability to guarantee Assange is not extradited (I said nothing about forcing his extradition).

Whether people think the Swedish government should or not, is a different matter, my point is they can; here is an example (this moots the Klamberg misquote too):
https://rt.com/news/russian-anger-as-sweden-blocks-extradition/

Laminations wrote:

I've posted up Sweden's standing in world rankings on corruption and justice. If he cannot get a fair extradition trial there he cannot get one anywhere. To use the governments past action to besmirch the Swedish courts system is odd. Also the guarantee cannot be given. It would involve a grave interference in the justice system there. And you'd quickly recognise that if people were calling for a government to guarantee a person would be extradited before they had their day in court. You will gladly deny the US their day in court, and their right to make a case, because you are afraid they may win.

Again, I have said nothing about the Swedish government guaranteeing extradition, it was clear I was addressing the guarantee that he not be extradited.

You make a good point though, regarding the reputation of the Swedish judicial system, and that does make it more likely, that any extradition trial would be undertaken fairly.

However, I still think it's prudent for Assange to seek extra protections before going to Sweden (and he has the perfect right to exercise his legal rights in seeking asylum) and potentially facing such an extradition case (as there is, in my opinion, a definite potential for abuse if he ends up in the US).

This should not result in a stop or prevention of the judicial process though, it should result in a continuation of them, but with Assange receiving extra protections; since the Swedish government has the power to provide these protections, it is not strictly a matter solely for the courts to decide (even if they would still have to first determine the merits of the case, before the government could have the final say), and Ecuador has the diplomatic power to try and help negotiate them.

Laminations wrote:

So you take the past actions of the Swedish government to question their integrity even though that Scandinavian country tops most rankings of openness, democracy, fairness etc. but you then cite the determinations of the Ecuadorean government as if they are some sort of moral authority, and arbitrator of fairness in the world?? Ecuador has examined the reality of the dangers better than the Swedish courts will? or better than the ECHR will? Really?

With the integrity of the Swedish judicial system in mind, I would change my point of view there and now put Ecuadors position as trying to provide extra protections to Assange, since he has placed himself under (and been granted) their protection.

Still, I can't know the full detailed reasonings behind Ecuador granting him asylum, so can't state that definitively.

Laminations wrote:

If the US were to request extradition, I would expect it to be based on a charge, and I'd expect them to prevent some proof to back that up. Your point is that because they haven't presented proof to the public (or at least you don't see any proof) that they shouldn't be allowed go to court at all. Yes the current situation is that no harm has been caused. That does not prevent the US from requesting extradition and presenting their case. If it is weak and they cannot show harm, they lose.

This line of quotes has gotten muddied, because it originated in me saying no harm has been caused thus far (and defending that statement); I'm not making any points about courts or the legal process in this line of quotes.

Laminations wrote:

On the contrary, with modern technology, you can interfere with the affairs of another country without ever stepping on their soil. Countries need to have cooperation and regard for international law, which recognises a countries right to national security. It would still be up to America to demonstrate how Assange and Wikileaks threatened US national security.

In your world of non-cooperate separate legal jurisdictions I could from a particularly lax country engage in cyber warfare and send out Anthrax parcels to any other country and be protected from extradition because I never 'stepped on their soil'. Your system of international justice and policing is for an antiquated age.

By your standard of extradition law, I could criticize the leader of a country who has made it illegal there to criticize him, and I could be extradited there based upon their laws (even if I were not a citizen or present in their country at any time); see how incredibly dangerous that is?

A standard clause in just about every extradition treaty (including Swedens with the US; I read it earlier), is that the crime a person is being extradited for, must also be a crime in the host country as well.

Laminations · 30-08-2012 4:04pm

JustinDee wrote: »

The Swedish government cannot "override" the decision of their (Hoeyeste Domstolen) Supreme Court. Thats the whole point of the court system in a democratic country.

Well they can, after the decision is made. They cannot pre-empt it and overrule it before it is even consulted. So they CANNOT provide a guarantee.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've provided a source outlaying that the Swedish government is capable of guaranteeing Assange can not be extradited, provide a countering source.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Patino claimed that they [Ecuador] have tried to get guarantees from Sweden that Assange would not be extradited in case of a request from the US. According to Bring it would be completely unreasonable to give such guarantees.

- Who could give such guarantees? The Supreme Court can not predict its own decision. If such a request is asked for it must be processed pursuant to the established manner.

–Subsequently the Government may deny extradition even if the Supreme Court has said yes but the Government can not issue any guarantess at the current stage. That would mean that the Government bulldozes the judicial system and says that it is irrelevant. It does not work that way in a democracy where there is an extradition treaty in place

The government are even more limited because there is an extradition treaty in place

even if the Government has leeway under national law, it is bound by international law. Both the Swedish and the UK Governments have extradition agreements with the US, and these agreements provide that extradition shall take place, if the legal requirements are met. Hence, the Government could not provide a guarantee, without potentially violating an international obligation.

Which finds support in part II p. 450 of the Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2011:71,

10.2 Obligation to extradite
10.2.1 Present law and assumptions

The starting point in section 1 of the Extradiction Act is that extradition pursuant to the law may be granted. With the word "may" follows that, as mentioned earlier, a free and discretionary power for the Government. This means that even if the legal requirements are met the Government may under the current legal scheme deny extradition. The Government may however by the accession to treaties and agreements binding under international law in an actual case be under an obligation to extradite. The possibilities of the State to deny extradiction with reference to State Sovereignty or ordre public may place the State interest before extradition and give some discretion and thus give the Government freedom.

But Assange's supporters care not for due process, legal protocols and national or international law.

Source

Laminations · 30-08-2012 4:11pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Whether people think the Swedish government should or not, is a different matter, my point is they can; here is an example (this moots the Klamberg misquote too):
https://rt.com/news/russian-anger-as-sweden-blocks-extradition/

Are you being purposely obtuse?

From that article

'The Chechen later fled to Sweden, where he was given refugee status.

Last year the Prosecutor's Office asked that he be handed over to Russia on suspicion of Yatsina's abduction.

At first extradition seemed inevitable. The Swedish Supreme Court and the Chief Prosecutor saw no obstacles.

But the Swedish government vetoed the transfer on October 4.'

Now answer some questions.
Do Sweden and Russia have an extradition treaty? (the answer is no)
Did the Swedish government give guarantees to the Chechen? (the answer is no)
Did the court and prosecutor give their decision before the Government vetoed it? (I've made that one easy and put the answer in bold.
Can refugee status be given to Assange while he is not in Sweden?

Laminations · 30-08-2012 4:16pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

By your standard of extradition law, I could criticize the leader of a country who has made it illegal there to criticize him, and I could be extradited there based upon their laws (even if I were not a citizen or present in their country at any time); see how incredibly dangerous that is?

Such and extradition would never stand up in an Irish court or any other court. Your defence would be freedom of speech. And I doubt there'd be many countries with extradition treaties in place with a country that had such a silly law.

A standard clause in just about every extradition treaty (including Swedens with the US; I read it earlier), is that the crime a person is being extradited for, must also be a crime in the host country as well.

Grand. Then it would fail in court. The Swedish Supreme Court and the Chief Prosecutor WOULD see an obstacle. And even if they didn't, the government could step in on that legal issue.

You are inventing scenarios to be afraid of.

JustinDee · 30-08-2012 5:08pm

Laminations wrote: »

Well they can, after the decision is made. They cannot pre-empt it and overrule it before it is even consulted. So they CANNOT provide a guarantee

They can challenge and appeal and yes indeed you are correct, they CANNOT provide any guarantee. The irony is Mr (Alleged) Democratic Champion is asking them to bend the rules for him and his supporters in a delusive manner, asking too.
One rule for Assange (who incredibly challenged an unauthorised biography on grounds of 'invasion of privacy') and another for everyone else.

KyussBishop · 31-08-2012 4:07am

Laminations wrote: »

Are you being purposely obtuse?

From that article

'The Chechen later fled to Sweden, where he was given refugee status.

Last year the Prosecutor's Office asked that he be handed over to Russia on suspicion of Yatsina's abduction.

At first extradition seemed inevitable. The Swedish Supreme Court and the Chief Prosecutor saw no obstacles.

But the Swedish government vetoed the transfer on October 4.'

Now answer some questions.
Do Sweden and Russia have an extradition treaty? (the answer is no)
Did the Swedish government give guarantees to the Chechen? (the answer is no)
Did the court and prosecutor give their decision before the Government vetoed it? (I've made that one easy and put the answer in bold.
Can refugee status be given to Assange while he is not in Sweden?

This reply is dripping with condescension; I posted that as an example that Sweden is capable of having the last word in extraditions, and regardless of whether or not they have an extradition treaty with Russia, that last word applies to the US as well.

The guarantee is another matter, which I reply to below.

Laminations wrote:

...
–Subsequently the Government may deny extradition even if the Supreme Court has said yes but the Government can not issue any guarantess at the current stage. That would mean that the Government bulldozes the judicial system and says that it is irrelevant. It does not work that way in a democracy where there is an extradition treaty in place

The government are even more limited because there is an extradition treaty in place

Okey, by that (and further reading up I've done) it seems the Swedish government can't provide a steadfast guarantee; there is still room for negotiation however, as they can still provide some assurances, such as e.g. a quote from a Swedish foreign ministry spokeswoman:
"Sweden does not extradite individuals who risk facing the death penalty"

Further assurances like that, may be one purpose for negotiation.
Now, I don't say the potential for further assurances like that justifies asylum, or that it's even necessary/useful, just that there is more room for negotiation here.

For the moment, I think it is still prudent for Assange to be kept under asylum, while the Ecuadorian government tries to negotiate better protections or assurances for him; my opinion now on the overall matter though, is that when such negotiations are exhausted, he should be released from asylum and sent to Sweden.

There may be other things to consider as they come up (particularly Bradley Mannings court case next February, if asylum goes on that long), but for now it seems asylum should only go on long enough for Ecuador to seek better assurances for Assange.

KyussBishop · 31-08-2012 4:14am

Laminations wrote: »

Such and extradition would never stand up in an Irish court or any other court. Your defence would be freedom of speech. And I doubt there'd be many countries with extradition treaties in place with a country that had such a silly law.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, if you libel someone then you can be brought to court; exceptions to freedom of speech like this, are written in law, and if an extradition treaty makes you subject to an entire other countries laws, you are subject to any such exceptions if they seek extradition.

That is why the merit of extradition requests must judged by laws in the host country, not of the country making the request.

Laminations wrote:

Grand. Then it would fail in court. The Swedish Supreme Court and the Chief Prosecutor WOULD see an obstacle. And even if they didn't, the government could step in on that legal issue.

You are inventing scenarios to be afraid of.

This line of quotes wasn't about the Swedish case though, it was about the idea of possible extradition treaties which (effectively) make the citizenship subject to other countries laws (such that you could be extradited for actions that are not a crime in your home country).

Laminations · 31-08-2012 9:12am

But nowhere am I saying Assange should necessarily be held to American laws, I'm firstly saying he should face the charges in Sweden (Swedish law) and if they request it, extradition hearing to America (still under Swedish law).

What his supporters are saying is that any possible extradition request from the US will be bogus and so Sweden should give a guarantee that it won't be heard, or that it will be vetoed. No request has yet been made to determine whether it is bogus, and the determining body will be the Swedish courts, not Assange or his supporters. Then, if it sees fit the Swedish government can exercise its discretion and veto the decision.

Laminations · 31-08-2012 9:16am

KyussBishop wrote: »

This reply is dripping with condescension; I posted that as an example that Sweden is capable of having the last word in extraditions, and regardless of whether or not they have an extradition treaty with Russia, that last word applies to the US as well.

The guarantee is another matter, which I reply to below.

Having the last word and being able to guarantee an outcome are two different things. I was merely pointing out that the example does not bolster your case that they can guarantee anything, a case you've now changed to 'give assurances'. The policy of the government not to extradite in cases of the death penalty is assurance enough. Any other assurances might undermine future extraditions where people will look for the same protections.

And nobody is arguing that the government can have the last word, the contentious point is that they can have the first word. So why you 'posted that as an example that Sweden is capable of having the last word in extraditions' to support a point we agree on....is beyond me. No, I'm quite sure you posted it to imply they can give guarantees.

Anyway we are now in agreement that they cannot give guarantees.

KyussBishop · 31-08-2012 2:26pm

Laminations wrote: »

But nowhere am I saying Assange should necessarily be held to American laws, I'm firstly saying he should face the charges in Sweden (Swedish law) and if they request it, extradition hearing to America (still under Swedish law).

What his supporters are saying is that any possible extradition request from the US will be bogus and so Sweden should give a guarantee that it won't be heard, or that it will be vetoed. No request has yet been made to determine whether it is bogus, and the determining body will be the Swedish courts, not Assange or his supporters. Then, if it sees fit the Swedish government can exercise its discretion and veto the decision.

I understand but there is still room for negotiation between Sweden and Ecuador, e.g. one thing potentially being more assurances of conditions Sweden would not extradite for, some of which they have already given, thus showing indirect assurances (note that they are different to guarantees) are possible without compromising the judicial process.

I agree that if the diplomatic process between Ecudaor and Sweden stalls, then (save any other considerations I'm not aware of now) Assange should go to Sweden and face the allegations, and potentially face a US extradition request too.

Laminations wrote:

Having the last word and being able to guarantee an outcome are two different things. I was merely pointing out that the example does not bolster your case that they can guarantee anything, a case you've now changed to 'give assurances'. The policy of the government not to extradite in cases of the death penalty is assurance enough. Any other assurances might undermine future extraditions where people will look for the same protections.

And nobody is arguing that the government can have the last word, the contentious point is that they can have the first word. So why you 'posted that as an example that Sweden is capable of having the last word in extraditions' to support a point we agree on....is beyond me. No, I'm quite sure you posted it to imply they can give guarantees.

Anyway we are now in agreement that they cannot give guarantees.

I think this is largely due to mutual misinterpretation of each others posts; I didn't pick up on the inability to give a preemptive guarantee until the last post, and there seemed to be the impression that I argued the Swedish government could give a guarantee to grant extradition, and again as a result I thought you were arguing the Swedish government could not veto extradition at all.

Amirani · 04-09-2012 4:18am

UK has effectively given an informal assurance that Assange won't be extradited to the U.S. if the death penalty is a possibility: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/03/ecuador-julian-assange-extradited-death-penalty

William Hague wrote:

"Our consent may only be given in accordance with the international conventions by which the UK is bound, including the European convention on human rights, and also our domestic law. In practice, this means that the United Kingdom could only consent to Mr Assange's onward extradition from Sweden to a third country if satisfied that extradition would be compatible with his human rights, and that there was no prospect of a death sentence being imposed or carried out."

"Human rights" in this instance seems a fairly ambiguous term. This does change the situation somewhat though.

steve9859 · 04-09-2012 6:35am

NiallSparky wrote: »

UK has effectively given an informal assurance that Assange won't be extradited to the U.S. if the death penalty is a possibility: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/03/ecuador-julian-assange-extradited-death-penalty

"Human rights" in this instance seems a fairly ambiguous term. This does change the situation somewhat though.

It's not just an informal assurance....if it clarification of the law. It has always been the case that Britain is not allowed under law to extradite if a death penalty is possible or if human rights would be breached. It was worth Hague claryfying that fact publicly, so that everyone stops buying the Assange line that he is going to be extradited to the USA face the death penalty when he is not.

What the statement tells me, reading between the lines, is that there is no way that the UK is not going to extradite him to Sweden, where he should 'man up'. And good riddance to him....

Uk Threaten to storm Ecuador Embassy for Assange

Comments