Lawless 'Unitary Executive' Comes Home to Roost as Assange UK Filing Slams Extradition Request

[BradBlog]

Assange UK Filing Slams Extradition Request; Lawless 'Unitary Executive' Comes Home to Roost
Attorneys charge abuse of process, duplicity, public vilification
Shades of infamous McMartin Preschool trial, 'sex crime' fiasco...

WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange's U.K. legal team filed a powerful, preliminary legal brief this week in response to the Swedish request that he be extradited. The Assange brief, cites extensive legal authority and sets forth why extradition will not lie merely for the purpose of questioning someone who has yet to be even been charged with a crime, but affirmatively alleges an abuse of process including duplicity on the part of the Swedish prosecutor.

The allegations also call to mind the infamous McMartin Preschool Trial and the horrific and irreparable harm that can be wrought when irresponsible media fan public hysteria by joining in a public vilification that assumes, as true, volatile allegations of sex crimes.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the brief, citing Sweden's past role in facilitating the Bush regime's extraordinary rendition requests which led to torture, ends with concerns that Sweden's request to extradite Assange is a sham intended to facilitate his unlawful rendition to the U.S. for placement in Guantanamo, or worse...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8304

[Arctic Dave]

1. K&R

[DCKit]

2. Damn, they pulled out ALL the stops!!!!

Have calls for "civil discourse and negotiation" gone out from the State Department and DOJ yet?

[Celebrandil]

3. Not charged?

I'm personally a supporter of Wikileaks and find the allegations against Assange troubling indeed. However, I also find it odd that Assange's lawyers keep repeating that he "has not yet been charged". As a local I know a bit about how things work here in Sweden, but I'm by no means an expert. What do the lawyers really mean? In Swedish Assange is "häktad". It means that the prosecutor has presented her case to the court and that the court has found the grounds as sufficient for detention. In order for this to happen, the charges have to be presented to the court. Even if the prosecutor could have accepted Assange's offer to be questioned, she probably acted the way she normally does, i.e. she waited until the court had given a green light, so that Assange could be formally questioned. So... when are you considered as charged according to UK och US law? Do you really have to be prosecuted, until you considered someone as changed?

[BradBlog]

6. Right. Not charged.

People are called in for questioning every day. Until they are actually charged with a crime, they are not charged with a crime. Charges can be filed before a person is in custody (eg. "So and so is wanted on charges of rape, murder, etc." or, alternatively, "So and so is wanted for questioning in regard to a rape, murder, etc.")

Are you saying the Swedish prosecutor wants Assange "detained" (as you write above) or wants him for questioning, which is my understanding of the case, and apparently the understanding of Assange's British attorneys.

[Celebrandil]

14. Yes, she wants him detained.

He is "häktad", which means that a court believes the "charges" are strong enough for him to be detained. Usually, the prosecutor only has two weeks after detention to wrap up the case and decide whether it should be brought to court or not. If there is a risk the person will disappear, however, the court might grant an extension of the two week period. My guess is that you cannot get someone extradited, if you just want someone in for questioning.

[JDPriestly]

12. Assange is in the UK. I think that makes a difference.

Procedures that would apply to individuals in Sweden may not apply. I believe there are certain either European or international procedures that must be followed. I think I heard somewhere that, under international or European law, Assange needs to have any charges that may have been filed or are under consideration to be translated and presented in English. I'm not sure I am right about that, but that is what I understood from something I heard or read about this.

[Celebrandil]

4. Extradition to US?

When it comes to extradition to America, I find it very very unlikely, even if I still see it as a risk. I don't like the characterization of Sweden's past role in helping Bush. It became a scandal indeed when two Egyptians were brought from Sweden in a "private" American jet, tortured and later shown to be innocent. Who know what? We still don't know for certain. The minister in charge was conveniently assassinated by a madman. If you like a better characterization of Sweden's attitude towards extradition to America, I suggest you look at the time of the Vietnam war. Sweden refused to extradite soldiers who didn't want to participate the war, which led to a long period of calm relations between the countries. Furthermore, according to our constitution we cannot extradite anyone to a country where the death penalty is practiced. This has led to difficulties, when Sweden in turn has tried to get people extradited from America.

[BradBlog]

8. Yes, extradition to US

Well, lemme ask you. If YOU were wanted by the world's most militant super power - whose Vice President has already labeled you a "terrorist" in the media, along with the near entirety of the media itself -- would you choose to believe Sweden's policies on extradition to the US are the same ones as in the 1960s? Or the ones seen more recently, following the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world when people in Sweden were snatched off the streets and sent off for torture before being charged with anything (and, in fact, being innocent of all allegation to boot)?

I know which side I'd prefer to err on!

[Celebrandil]

15. There is a risk, even if it's limited.

In Assange's case I would have done the same. What I disliked was the characterization of Sweden's policies on extradition, based on the case of the two Egyptians. The climate in Sweden is such that anyone suggesting an extradition of Assange to US would commit a political suicide, not just because of the sentiment of people in general, but also based on the law. I would say that thanks to the case of the Egyptians and by labeling Assange a terrorist, the risk of extradition is far lower than otherwise. Still... in Assange's shoes, even the slightest risk is a risk worth fighting.

[Rex]

5. The US would LOVE to extradite him to Gitmo or worse...doesn't look

like they will win. It will probably boil down to Assange better NEVER enter America in his lifetime - he would be a deadman walking.

[treestar]

7. The US is so unfair to poor Julian!

And it hasn't even done anything yet!

:nopity:

[BradBlog]

9. What do you mean by...

..."it hasn't even done anything yet"??

[treestar]

11. Has it demanded his extradition?

And what is this crap about Gitmo? Would they not do whatever they do with such people in such situations?

[PufPuf23]

13. What do you think of POTUS Obama having a policy of extra-judical

killing of American citizens or "Enemy combatents"? based upon intelligene often no stronger than hearsay outside the domestic and international legal system and accepting collateral damage of innocents?

[Kurovski]

10. K&R. (nt)