Peter:

There is no need for him to be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed. The interview could easily take place in London and could have been conducted here many months ago.

…is entirely true. The EAW system is ropey, and the Assange case has done European citizens a favour by pointing this out. Assange should be facing a proper extradition hearing, under which the Swedish prosecutors demonstrate that they have sufficient evidence to prove a case in England under English law. As should Gary McKinnon, and any other poor sod on fast-track deportation to dodgy jurisdictions (which, sadly, include far too much of the ‘developed’ world).

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have performed a great public service by exposing US war crimes.

But this is irrelevant, and comes close to the points made by DSK’s ropier defenders. It doesn’t matter if Julian Assange discovered a cure for cancer, or if he drinks meths on the streets and panhandles for change – either way, if he raped a woman he should be brought to justice for it, if there’s no evidence he raped a woman, he shouldn’t be facing charges, and if there’s enough evidence to prove to an English court that he should be extradited to face charges, then he should be extradited to face charges.

‘it is only thanks to Julian and Wikileaks that we now know the truth about this slaughter of innocent civilians – and about the killing of hundreds of other civilians in unreported and undocumented incidents.

This has nothing to do with the case. If he is accused of rape or sexual assault, he needs to answer those charges and be found innocent or guilty in a fair trial. Many people do good and bad things.

@ 2

“This has nothing to do with the case. If he is accused of rape or sexual assault, he needs to answer those charges and be found innocent or guilty in a fair trial.”

I totally agree that his involvement in Wikileaks doesn’t excuse his crimes, if any. But shouldn’t the situation surrounding the case – specifically, the suspicion that people are trying to bring him somewhere where the US can grab him and take him away for interrogation – at least be taken into account when we’re deciding whether to allow the extradition?

Normally I’d say that as long as the Swedish authorities can prove that the case isn’t a total waste of time, we should allow the extradition. But with this much reason to suspect ulterior motives – and very little sway over what happens to him once extradicted – I’m not so sure. I’m reminded of cases where we would usually deport an immigrant, but don’t do so because they might face death or torture in their home country.

The ideal solution seems to be for him to face trial in the UK under Swedish law, with any sentence to be carried out in the UK, but I don’t know whether our law or theirs allows for that.

But shouldn’t the situation surrounding the case – specifically, the suspicion that people are trying to bring him somewhere where the US can grab him and take him away for interrogation – at least be taken into account when we’re deciding whether to allow the extradition?

Once upon a time the English courts would indeed have had that sort of discretion. But then we signed up to the European Arrest Warrant. So now we don’t.

Oh come off it – Sweden is FAR less likely, both diplomatically and by treaty, to hand over Assange to the Americans than the UK is, especially with the current government here.

@ 5

That didn’t seem to be the general assessment when the case against Assange first came to light.

Indeed. What would have become of our understanding of the imperial wars in the MIddle east if Assange wasn’t there to eavesdrop and enlighten us? Assange needs our support in any way we can help out.

Chaise – Really? I’ve read two blogs from lawyers analysing the legal case (at the time, I’d have to hunt for them now), both of which were saying just that. Do remember that the US don’t need to show cause to demand extraditions from the UK…are you saying that Sweden has even less protection?

That didn’t seem to be the general assessment when the case against Assange first came to light.

General assessment? Or assessment made by Assange fanbois?

Wow, I’d expected that this would turn into a misogynst madfest, I’m delighted that it didn’t.

To determine whether Julian should be charged and stand trial on sex allegations, he needs to be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors. There is no need for him to be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed. The interview could easily take place in London and could have been conducted here many months ago.

I am astonished that the Swedish prosecutors have refused to come to London to interview Julian. For nearly a year, he has offered to be interviewed in the UK. Why has his offer never been taken up by the prosecutors in Sweden?

What of other people, residing in this country, suspected of sexual offences by authorities in another country? Should those authorities also fly over here to interview those suspects?

Why didn’t Assange agree to be interviewed by the Swedish authorities while he was in Sweden?

@Chaise Guevara #3:

“But shouldn’t the situation surrounding the case – specifically, the suspicion that people are trying to bring him somewhere where the US can grab him and take him away for interrogation – at least be taken into account when we’re deciding whether to allow the extradition?”

Two points;

1 The Swedish extradition treaty with the USA is far more restrictive than ours;
2 If he is extradited to Sweden from here (as opposed to his voluntarily going there) two countries would then need to agree his onward extradition to the USA – us and Sweden.

So he is safer in Sweden from extradition to the USA than he is here. The suggestion to the contrary was made by the same people that denied that having sex with a woman while she was asleep and without a condom (when she’d agreed on sex while awake only on condition he wore a condom) was rape. Hmm.

“I am astonished that the Swedish prosecutors have refused to come to London to interview Julian. For nearly a year, he has offered to be interviewed in the UK. Why has his offer never been taken up by the prosecutors in Sweden?”

Why should they? There’s a system called the European Arrest Warrant which we signed up to so that we didn’t have to send detectives all over Europe to interview suspects who had fled the jurisdiction. So did Sweden. Why should Sweden not use it?

Would we even be having this conversation if Assange had been Joe Bloggs, rape suspect?

Wow, I’d expected that this would turn into a misogynst madfest, I’m delighted that it didn’t.

give it time

@ 8 and 9

It seemed to be a commonly accepted risk – so possibly total crap, but I remember a lot of stuff about whether or not the rape allegations were being brought back to light as a way to get him out of the UK. I’ve no idea about how our extradition rules measure up to Sweden’s, but the line I remember hearing was that Sweden was believed to be more inclined than the UK to do what America wants in the hope of winning brownies points.

That was a long time ago, and the story’s died down a lot since then. If all that turned out to be nonsense that has since been put to bed, then fair enough.

@11. ukliberty: “Why didn’t Assange agree to be interviewed by the Swedish authorities while he was in Sweden?”

He did. He was questioned on at least one occasion when in Sweden and agreed that he would return to Sweden for a further interview (the date for this was agreed). After leaving Sweden to perform some public meetings in the UK, he decided that he wasn’t going back. Hence the decision by two UK courts about the value of his promises and subsequent bail conditions.

The suggestion that Assange be interviewed via Skype is laughable. Those conducting the interview want and need to be in the same room as him, to judge his body language and demeanour. Many Scandinavians speak excellent English (as much credit to the BBC as to their education systems), but seeing the interviewee face to face is essential.

The interview in the UK might be conducted by Swedish police. There may be problems with this if the police consider it pertinent to confront Assange with physical evidence. Swedish courts may be a bit sniffy about evidence that left the country as part of the investigation.

@Chaise: The Guardian running report of the Assange hearing addresses your questions about further extradition at 2.36pm. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage

True, Assange may be guilty of rape. If so, he should face the full force of the law, but there is more than a slight suggestion that the allegation, the intended prosecution and(in the eyes of certain political figures) the desired guilty verdict are all part of something very sinister. This whole process began the moment Wikileaks let it be known that the data was in their hands, the shadowy figures behind it not being slow to act, not when the political establishment is threatened with damaging revelations. If Assange is being stitched-up it would serve no purpose, the leaks have already resonated with people across the globe, the way the powers that be have handled it giving further cause for suspicion. As I said, he may be guilty as accused, not having been charged as yet, but I think I’ll follow my instincts on this one. Not guilty, if he goes to Sweden he will definitely be ghosted, ending up in some quiet corner of a swedish prison, awaiting questioning by ‘representatives of a government agency’. No prizes for guessing which one.

@ 15:

“That was a long time ago, and the story’s died down a lot since then. If all that turned out to be nonsense that has since been put to bed, then fair enough.”

Well, I don’t know enough to be certain, but I wasn’t under the impression that the Swedish government had much of a reputation for bending over backwards to accomodate American wishes — unlike, it must be said, the British government. So whilst it’s possible that there’s some little-known factor that would make extradition easier from Sweden than from the UK, prima facie the claim that this is just some ploy to get Assange extradited to the US is rather implausable, and requires considerably more backing-up than Assange’s supporters usually give it.

@11. ukliberty: “Why didn’t Assange agree to be interviewed by the Swedish authorities while he was in Sweden?”

He did. He was questioned on at least one occasion when in Sweden and agreed that he would return to Sweden for a further interview (the date for this was agreed). After leaving Sweden to perform some public meetings in the UK, he decided that he wasn’t going back. Hence the decision by two UK courts about the value of his promises and subsequent bail conditions.

Ah yes, my mistake.

4. Mr Assange had been interviewed about the sexual assault allegations before Ms Ny took over the case. …

5. After taking over the case Ms Ny “sensibly” [Mr Hurtig] decided to interview the complainant (on 2nd September). Mr Hurtig was instructed by Mr Assange on 8th September and entered into communication with Ms Ny shortly thereafter. …

7. The Swedish system emphasises the importance of early interrogation (Mr Alhem). Ms Ny contacted Mr Hurtig and asked to interrogate his client. Mr Hurtig cannot say for certain whether that was on 21st (as Ms Ny says in her written information) or 22nd September. The 28th September was suggested as a date for interrogation.

8. No interrogation has taken place.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

There is more detail there about why there has been no interrogation.

I think the editor’s note says it all.

@OP: “We, the people, have a right to know what the British and American governments are doing in our name.”

And Swedish courts have a right to determine whether two of their citizens were assaulted.

Sweden’s judicial and investigative systems are different from those of the UK; Assange’s barristers are trying to use these differences to avoid his deportation. I don’t mind that they are undermining the EWA (a flawed concept) and possibly winning that argument; the verdict will (probably) be determined according to whether the UK court accepts that the requested police interview is a judicial process (say, to determine whether public interest is served by prosecution) or an investigative one.

Assange has more appropriate barristers this time. Assange’s case is being delivered very differently and may have consequences beyond his circumstances.

“There is no need for him to be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed. ”

As everyone has mentioned, yes there is. The EAW.

This is the law of this land. Shouldn’t be, sure, but is.

And If I could just mention here that it was a Lib Dem MEP that was the rapporteur, the person who made sure it got through the European Parliament? And that both Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg voted for it? And that UKIP was the only UK party in the EUP that voted against it?

You know, we did fucking tell you this would happen, didn’t we, you idiots?

@22. Tim Worstall:

Tim quoting or paraphrasing: “There is no need for him to be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed. ”

As an honest man, Assange should return to Sweden for an interview that he promised to conduct. Ideally, an honest man who believes in the law of common citizens bows his/her head and acknowledges judicial and investigative process.

In the UK, Assange has branded his forehead with the letters “Awkward Cunt” and is unable to understand why anyone takes him seriously.

Tim: “The EAW.” I agree absolutely that this is not just a fuck up for people like Assange but a fuck up for citizens, visitors and natives. And the same for the similar extradition agreement with the USA.

Oh dear, Tatchell.

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time the Swedish (who we usually considered to be pretty good on this human rights stuff) think there is a case to answer.

I’m not even sure that the way that Assange and wikileaks appear to have let Bradley Manning be fingered for all the data leaks was all that honourable anyway. But that’s also not relevant to the question of extradition.

Possibly he might have done it. But the number of people (not at all restricted to the US government) who would like Assange dead or incarcerated is so high, after the international embarassment he’s caused, that I personally find it spectacularly unlikely that the case in Sweden is completely coincidental, especially given the timing. After all, if you wanted to hit someone with trumped-up allegations, it’s hard to imagine a better choice of accusation, under the Swedish system at least.

If the proper protections are in place, I admit he can only go to Sweden and face trial. But if he cannot confirm they are, he should do everything to avoid going.

@22 – What, that sex crimes could lead to EAW’s? Ohnoes!

Yes, there are cases of abuse. However, this isn’t one of them and the contortions which are being used as defences against extradition…sheesh. (I say nothing as to the crime itself, just what’s being used against the extradition warrant).

Realistically, if the worry was extradition, I can’t see that he wouldn’t be GLAD to go back to Sweden. Which…well, no, not going there.

I think it would be most unfair, and not conducive to justice, for Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden when he has not been charged with any offence.

Why?

The sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange deserve to be taken very seriously. But Julian is innocent until proven guilty.

No he is not. He is entitled to be treated as if he was innocent. But that does not mean he is actually innocent. Or for that matter guilty. Prisons are full of people who are actually innocent even though courts found them guilty.

There is no need for him to be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed.

Sure – JA is such a hero the entire Swedish legal system ought to make every allowance for him. There is also no need for him to fight extradition. No one has been able to come up with a sane reason why he shouldn’t go.

Why has his offer never been taken up by the prosecutors in Sweden?

The same reason we so rarely take up murderers offers to serve their prison in a luxury apartment in the south of Spain.

It is only thanks to Julian and Wikileaks that we now know the truth about the slaughter of innocent civilians (including the massacre of Reuters journalists and other civilians in Iraq in 2007) – and about the killing of hundreds of other civilians in unreported and undocumented incidents.

Sure – and the truth is there was no slaughter of innocent civilians, nor a massacre involving a Reuters journalist. Who take risks if they hang out with people firing RPGs at American soldiers.

We, the people, have a right to know what the British and American governments are doing in our name.

No we do not. Or more accurately, we, the people, have the right to pass laws to enable our elected representatives to carry out a sane and effective foreign policy which requires a reasonable level of secrecy. Which we did. We, the people, have every right to be peeved when some prat comes along and decides that he is going to flout that democratic decision because, well, he wants to or has some Mommy issues or something.

Until the Wikileaks revelations, most of these crimes and cover-ups were unknown. Wikileaks shone a light on many grave injustices

Name three. Wikileaks did not, of course, because there were none.

Instead of persecuting the whistleblowers, prosecutors should be putting on trial the US military personnel who committed these terrible crimes.

JA is not a whistleblower. He is a reporter of whistleblowers. And there is actually some evidence against him. There is none against any Western soldiers in the Wikileaks material. But, hey, American soldiers suck, don’t they? They are tools of the fascist state. Upholders of patriarchy. So let’s give JA every legal break we can think of – above and beyond what the law allows – while smearing them en masse shall we? Cool. That will show the Man.

The sexual abuse of women is a very serious matter. The allegations against Assange deserve very serious consideration and a full investigation. I have never said that he is innocent. He might be guilty of sexual assault / rape, in which case he should be prosecuted and punished.

However, last year the sex allegations against Assange were considered by Swedish prosecutors and it was decided that he had no case to answer. Subsequently, they were revived by another prosecutor. I have no objection a reconsideration of the allegations. Fair enough.

The Assange case aside, I object to the European Arrest Warrant in all cases, on the grounds that the state seeking extradition does not have to first charge the person or produce any detailed evidence of the alleged offence. Arresting and removing a person from their country of residence without charges or substantive evidence goes against the basic principles of justice.

I’m generally sympathetic to the anxiety about WikiLeaks and its future that seems to be the driving force behind much (not all) of the apologia for Assange. I’m not necessarily convinced that WikiLeaks is a force for good – but it is a force to be sure, and an important player in the digital age democratisation of information that will be the defining feature of the coming century.

However it seems to me entirely unnecessary to undermine the WikiLeaks project of exposing lies and prevarication by distorting facts to make some kind of case for its founder to evade justice (where “justice” is a concept inclusive of the possibility of acquittal and exoneration – a fact that few of the apologists seem to seriously consider).

Julian Assange is not a whistleblower. He has not personally incurred any personal risk – despite his affectation of Guevara-like elusiveness – in order to obtain and expose sensitive political or military information.

Julian Assange is not WikiLeaks. He is the founder of WikiLeaks and one of the people who ran it. But he is not indispensable to its mission unless he chooses to act in a way that obstructs its operations in his absence.

Julian Assange has not been “charged with an offence” in the UK sense of the legal term because the offence he is alleged to have committed did not occur under UK jurisdiction. Swedish law requires that suspects are interviewed before being formally charged (a pretty sensible law if you ask me). The fallacy lurking behind the “innocent until proven guilty” apologia of Tatchell and others is that the campaign to stop his extradition is a campaign to stop him being charged, and a campaign to stop him being charged is a campaign to stop him being proved guilty.

It all sounds very plausible and libertarian on the surface; but in reality Mr Tatchell is advocating the perversion of justice and the denial of vindication to two potential victims through nothing more respectable than half-truth, obfuscation and elision: not really in line with hte WikiLeaks ethic, if you ask me.

@Peter Tatchell #28:

“The Assange case aside, I object to the European Arrest Warrant in all cases, on the grounds that the state seeking extradition does not have to first charge the person or produce any detailed evidence of the alleged offence. Arresting and removing a person from their country of residence without charges or substantive evidence goes against the basic principles of justice.”

Interesting point of view. Could you elaborate? Particularly the “basic principles of justice” bit.

early on, i can across a reference to this case in a blog in the states: ‘legal schnauzer.’

search it for ‘rove/assange.’

according to ls, those two women didn’t know they had been abused until after they had been visited by a political legal firm. this firm was visited by karl rove, one of the partners subsequently moved to alexandria virginia- conveniently close to cia hq

i haven’t seen any original documents, and we should wait for the whole story, but my tentative opinion is that justice in sweden is being perverted. i hope the assange team has the resources to meet what seems to be an extra-legal assault.