Assange is in no greater danger of being extradited from Sweden than from the UK

[ariana]

Assange is in no greater danger of being extradited from Sweden than from the UK

Here is the explanation why it would not be any easier to extradite Assange to the US from Sweden than it would be from the UK:

1. It is frequently suggested that ONLY Sweden has got a special extradition treaty with the USA. Of course, this is not true. Here is a list of all countries which have signed such a contract with the US: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

2. As can be seen above, the UK is also on this list. Interestingly, the treaty between the UK and the USA contains exactly the same clause about “temporary surrender” as the treaty between Sweden and the US. So, if this clause is supposed to mean that Assange could be sent to the US without further ado, then why would the Americans be waiting for him to  come to Sweden even though they could already have requested “temporary surrender” while Assange is in the UK: 

UK treaty: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf  (Art. 14)

Sweden treaty: http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf (Art. VI)

3. As for the „temporary surrender“ clause: It does NOT mean that somebody can temporarily be taken to the US "quickly and secretly", as we are made to believe. “Temporary surrender” is, along with “deferred surrender”, a measure which is meant for the extradition of people who have been charged with another crime or sent to prison in the country where the extradition is being requested.

Article VI
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.

4. So, if the US has to request the extradition in any case, regardless of where Assange is or whether he is free, charged with a crime or sentenced, then why are the US waiting for him to be extradited to Sweden and for proceedings which might then possibly be instituted against him?

The mystery remains - why are all these facts being concealed by Assange and his legal team, and what is the real reason why Assange does not want to go to Sweden? All rumors that Sweden is planning to secretly hand overAssange  to the CIA are pure speculations.

** Many thanx to Anon1984 for translating this article from German :)

[Teclo]

Hi Ariana,

Hopefully others will join in this dialogue.

A good start would be to check out Craig Murray's address from Sunday as to reasons why the Swedish case against Julian Assange has been taken up in favour of direct action against his work with WikiLeaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8d8BLBymI, sadly ignored by the media coverage of last sunday. It would seem there is quite a big historical record of responding to dissidents in this manner.

You state:

The mystery remains - why are all these facts being concealed by Assange and his legal team, and what is the real reason why Assange does not want to go to Sweden? All rumors that Sweden is planning to secretly hand overAssange  to the CIA are pure speculations.

where/how/when have Julian Assange the WikiLeaks team concealed these 'facts' about the various extradition frameworks you name? In fact these are themes are thrown about regularly in the mainstream media. Bigger mysteries are why there has been little press attention to the fact that Julian Assange remained in Sweden for 5 weeks following the women involved going to the police about, what I understand, was initially advice about sexual health tests.  Or why the press, allegedly so keen to uphold the rights of these women, have ignored that one of the complainants describes being 'rail-roaded' into making a statement against Julian Assange.

Julian Assange cannot be extracted from his work with WikiLeaks. While the momentum of WikiLeaks will continue beyond him (this of course is the purpose when you go about transformative change) the agitation against him, to my mind, is a clear indication by the powerful States that such momentum will not be tolerated. If we are to ignore what is happening to Julian Assange, if we fail to read it as part of the WikiLeaks narrative, then we are also failing to protect every one of us willing enough to shout loud and clear that ameliorative shifts in the political landscape do nothing but reinforce the status quo.

Teclo

[ariana]

Thank you for your kind response, Teclo. My post is not based on subjective opinion, but on real facts which are availible to the public.

[4thInternational]

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/assa-a18.shtml

[Teclo]

Hi Ariana,

Good to have dialogue with you.

Please could you clarify/ reference your assertion in this question:

why are all these facts being concealed by Assange and his legal team

Teclo

[wayseer]

The mystery remains - why are all these facts being concealed by Assange and his legal team, and what is the real reason why Assange does not want to go to Sweden? All rumors that Sweden is planning to secretly hand overAssange  to the CIA are pure speculations. [/b]

I fail to see where the 'facts are being concealed by Assange and his legal team'.   Geoffrey Robinson has extensively reported on the matter some time ago.  The initial prosecutor dumped all allegations and charges concerning sexual assault et al against Assange.  The prosecutor was then sidelined and new one put in change and - hey presto, we have a whole new ball game.

Further, if the whole idea that Assange would be handed over by Swedish Government is no more than 'speculation', the Swedish Government can easily come out and make it clear that no such action would take place.  To my knowledge they have not.  So what gives? 

The evidence uncovered by Wikileaks should send US to the Court of International Justice for crimes against humanity.  No such action will take place of course but that does not mean that the US is seriously embarrassed by the revelations.   And there was an attempt by the UK Police to grab Assange while in the embassy but was foiled by supporters putting videoing their actions over social media.  Assange is wise to remain suspicious.   

 

[ariana]

Hi Teclo, hello Wayseer

thank you for your kind response.

Further to your remarks about my statement that Assange and his legal team are concealing some important facts, I'd like to stress once more that Assange and his legal team are basing one of their main arguments against Assange being extradited to Sweden on the base of the extradition treaty between Sweden and US in which Sweden can temporary surrender Assange without further ado. As shown above, this is not true as UK and Sweden are both bound to the same extradition conditions which clearly states that Assange could have been, and still could be extradited at the request of the US providing the terms of treaty are fullfilled. The list of requirements can be found in the links to the Swedish and UK treaty in my last post.

Most important factor is that the US has to file for extradition prior to attempting to implement the " termpory surrender " clause, Furthermore the extradition has to be confirmed and granted by both Sweden AND the UK.

In a nutshell, the US doesnt need to wait for Assange to go in Sweden to file for extradition when the same could be done in the UK, at the same time the UK is bound by the Supreme Court decision to extradite Assange to Sweden ( but that's another can of worms ).

Let me add that Sweden has no legal obligation to promise Assange not to extradite him. No individual has a legal base to set demands over a sovereign state and therefore Sweden can hardly been expected to bow to demands of the Assange legal team, especially as state of evidence is ever changing.

Once more I ask why the Assange legal team doesn't accept these facts.
 

[ariana]

p.s. Once more all important links:

Treaty between UK and US: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf (Art. 7 regarding capital punishment and Art. 14 regarding temporary and deferred surrender)

Treaty between Sweden and US from 1963: http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-treaty-14-ust-1845.pdf (Articles V and VIII regarding non-extraditable cases)

Supplementary treaty between Sweden and US from 1984: http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf (Article VI regarding temporary and deferred surrender)

[Riney]

Hi ariana, Teclo, wayseer, and anyone I missed. I am glad this discussion is being held. There is so much being presented to the public these days concerning WikiLeaks - it is always nice to get some real life opinions on these hot topics.

As far as the legalities of the issue - I won't give an opinion for now. Laws can always be worked around and loopholes found or they can be outright broken if all else fails. For instance, when the US government needed to suspend the Geneva convention to allow them to designate enemy combatants - "terrorist" and strip them of the rights that were given to them in the convention- all they had to do was put their team of attorneys(they have a least 100 of them on staff in Washington DC at all times) to task of finding a way to do this and make it "legal" to do so. They succeeded, to this day those rights are still suspended and those prisoners are still without due process rotting away in Guantanamo.

What I would like to comment on is extraditing Assange to the US. At this juncture in the game I really don't see a reason for them to do so. They have him where they want him for now. If they did extradite him they would not gain in that much in disabling his ability to work other than completely deny him internet access-which for now they could probably control his work online remotely anyway. Look at what they could possibly do to them selves by actually extraditing him. They would justify everything that he has said about them witch hunting him- they would enamour him completely in the eyes of his most ardent supporters(or should I say more completely enamour because they are already completely enamoured with him) and bring people that were on the edge of supporting over to that side.

Seriously, why would they extradite him now?  :)               

[Darkernet]

You've all got it wrong.

Yes, both the UK and Sweden have the temporary loan agreement, but Britain is first obliged to apply any extradition against whatever is currently outstanding - i.e. the request from Sweden in conjunction with the Interpol Arrest warrant, still in force. Had that warrant not been issued and had the USA issued an arrest warrant of its own against Assange (which it has not been unable to because the Grand Jury is still deliberating the charges) then Britain could then consider agreeing to extradition (not a temporary loan in those circumstances) to the USA. The Swedish situation is different: once the current extradition (from UK to Sweden) is dealt with then the Swedes would be in the clear to loan Assange to the USA at any point in time. Ironically, it actually suits the US that everything is delayed (while the Wikileaks Grand Jury deliberates). and, so, it would appear that moving to a country where there is no extradition agreement with the USA, the UK, Australia or Sweden may indeed be M. Assange's only option left (although a change of Government at some stage in Ecuador could then mean another move.)

Meanwhile, there are a growing number of articles in the press about the two complainants in Sweden and whether or not they (assuming charges are raised at some stage) will have their case heard in court. Unless Snr. Garzon can extract a guarantee of no onward extradition from Sweden or the UK (which it can insist on as part of the extradition) or even a guarantee of no prosecution from the USA, then a hearing in Sweden looks increasingly unlikely.

 

[Riney]

Hi Darkernet,

    I still don't see any reason for them to even extradite him to the US. At least for now- like you said they still need time to do their investigation. They really have little to gain at this time and too much to loose. 

[ariana]

Thank you for your very kind reply, Darkernet, but "temporary surrender" (not "temporary LOAN agreement") applies only if the US has succesfully filed for extradition, but I'm only repeating myself.

In words of Joschka Fischer, ex German foreign minister, adressing ex US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld: "You have to make the case. And to make the case in democracy, you have to convince by yourself. Excuse me, I'm not convinced!"

p.s. Your comment implies that there's no concpiracy between CIA and Sweden against Assange

[Darkernet]

I do not disagree that there is probably a conspiracy between Sweden and the US (and UK).

The term 'temporary surrender' is commonly used, though the one I know of within legal circles is 'temporary loan agreement' (it amounts to the same thing).

While the US can issue an extradition request to the UK at any time, the UK cannot meet that until it has dealt with the outstanding request from Sweden (first in queue, as it were).

If there was no outstanding extradition request from Sweden then the US could apply to the UK for extradition (in such circumstances, not as a temporary loan, as there would then be no other arrest warrant in place).

As for timing, you've only got to look at how the Bradley Manning hearing are playing out: over 800 days in detention when just over 100 is the legal limit. Ideally, the US would like to get hold of Assange closer to Manning's actual trial and preferably after the Wikileaks Grand Jury has completed its investigation.

[Riney]

Thank you Darkernet for the dialogue, I really enjoy discussing this with you. However, in the future if you could refrain from making such statements as "You've all got it wrong."- that is degrading and not helpful. I am still on the fence on whether it would be beneficial for the US to even extradite him ever and I am choosing to remain at the point until I decide otherwise.
   thanks again for your contribution, Riney  :)
     

[Darkernet]

Enjoyed the conversation too.  :)