The Perils Facing Julian Assange

I have put this here in its entirety; not because I particularly wanted to, but because both you and I can read it in some kind of comfort.

Now I may not be the greatest blogger in the world, but at least I try and present what I do in the tidiest manner possible. All photo's are bordered, I use one font, one size, and keep italics to the minimum. And the text is always in readable bite sized chunks.

I don't know if you as a reader feel the same, but if the font is too small it's a struggle, equally, if it's too large it's not comfortable, it's like watching a tennis match and trying to make sense of what's written there at the same time. See footnote below.

US Extradition

Extradition to the United States

Contents

Extradition Risks
Temporary Surrender
Legal Safeguards under Temporary Surrender and Extradition
Will Sweden extradite Julian Assange to the US?
Wouldn’t the UK be more likely to extradite Assange than Sweden?
United States: Secret Grand Jury

Extradition risks

''The US investigation against WikiLeaks is unprecedented both in its scale and nature - Australian Embassy in Washington

Sweden is bound by different extradition agreements. It is not meant to grant onwards extradition to a third country without agreement from the extraditing country. But at the same level of the legal hierarchy there is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. This is the temporary surrender/conditional release regime - automatic extradition on a loan basis. It is highly likely that the United States will soon request Julian Assange’s extradition from Sweden and this mechanism will be used while Julian Assange is in Swedish custody.

''The US government is certainly looking at the technical aspects of the two extradition agreements between the UK and Sweden and then considering the political and legal atmosphere in both places. - John B. Bellinger III, former legal adviser to US State Department and National Security Council

Of the reasons for Julian Assange’s challenge to Sweden’s extradition order, relevant to this topic are:

1) Julian Assange has not been charged with any offense.

2) Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures.



3) There are standard EU mechanisms (such as Mutual Legal Assistance) for Julian Assange to answer any questions the Swedish government may have. It is disproportionate, and an abuse, to use extradition proceedings in this manner.

4) Extradition law requires a "judicial authority" (e.g a judge or other independent body) to issue an extradition warrant, in order to keep the separation between the executive and the judiciary. It is an abuse to permit prosecutors, intelligence agents or other officials who are not independent to issue proceedings.

''The concern is that the Swedish case is a holding case while the Virginian grand jury come forward with an indictment to take him to America. - Christine Assange

Temporary surrender - under the US-Sweden Extradition Treaty

''It is not clear how Sweden might respond to any US request for his temporary surrender to the US, if American charges were laid against him on arrival in Sweden. The present conservative Swedish Government has a history of acceding to all US rendition requests during the War on Terror. - Tony Kevin, retired Australian diplomat

Most of the attention regarding Julian Assange’s possible extradition to the US has focused on the EU agreements that are meant to prevent onward extradition - namely that the UK Home Office would have to consent to his onward extradition. Little or no attention has been given in Europe to the temporary surrender (sometimes called ’conditional release’, see the Panama example below) mechanism that Sweden established bilaterally with the United States in their 1984 treaty (TIAS 10812):

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:

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 of the Contracting States.

Temporary surrender has been incorporated into the EU-US Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance agreements entered into in February 2010. The Council of the EU’s handbook explains temporary surrender in the following manner:

''[Temporary surrender] facilitates the orderly and efficient prosecution of a person sought in two jurisdictions by allowing the temporary transfer of the person to the Requesting State for prosecution, when that person is subject to proceedings (either prosecution or service of a sentence) in the Requested State. The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer. - Council of the European Union - Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements (p. 15)

The US has put what appears to be an expedient de facto extradition in place that effectively sidesteps traditional extradition safeguards. The background for this mechanism is to combat serious crimes - typically drug trafficking, terrorism, and so on - and it has implemented such innovative mechanisms with several strong allies.

One of the strategic allies that has implemented these types of mechanisms in the context of drug trafficking, is Panama: a recently released US embassy cable described the "conditional release" regime:

''use of Conditional Release, under which the GOP [Government of Panama] releases to the US a suspect already under arrest in Panama on other charges. Under this procedure, the suspect is "lent" to the US for prosecution on the condition that they will be returned for prosecution in Panama at the end of their sentence. This procedure is much faster than a formal extradition, and has proven so successful, that DEA sometimes designs operations to bring suspects to Panama so they can be arrested in Panama and turned over to US authorities quickly. - US Embassy Panama Cable, 2008

The Conditional Release mechanism appears indistinguishable from the temporary surrender mechanism, apart from the fact that in conditional release the suspect will serve his/her sentence in the US before returning to the requested state (in the case above, Panama), while in temporary surrender the US would have to negotiate with Sweden at what point Julian Assange would be returned to the requested state for prosecution/serving a sentence.

A research paper prepared for US Congress in March 2010 by the Congressional Research Service (’Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties’) does not mention the Conditional Release mechanism in the report and it appears that little is known about this preferred method of extradition.

US Embassy contacted regarding temporary surrender/conditional release of Julian Assange

The US Embassy in London was [contacted by The Guardian newspaper] after readers sought clarification about the temporary surrender/conditional release mechanism, and whether the US will employ it in its request to Sweden. The US embassy declined to give a statement.

Surprisingly perhaps, the Guardian did not attempt to contact the Swedish Embassy - it is after all Sweden that is bound by the two potentially conflicting extradition regimes (under the Framework Directive and the US Extradition Treaty, respectively) and would be best equipped to address whether it would treat a ’temporary surrender’ as regular extradition (with its safeguards). The EU Handbook on the US-EU Extradition Treaty seems to suggest differently:

''The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer.

Despite the failure of The Guardian to get to the bottom of this potentially game-changing issue, the readers’ discussion raised some important hypotheticals: For example, the reader GregCallus suggested "this extradition takes place under a European Arrest Warrant [which] means that (as a matter of EU law) Sweden would be bound by the Article 28.4 rules on seeking permission from the UK (which would be judicially reviewable). If they tried to ignore those obligations, then a preliminary reference to the ECJ (on the super-fast track urgent) route would likely compel them to get the UK’s permission."

However, the question remains: if the US uses not traditional extradition but temporary surrender do the presumed safeguards under EU law apply? Is it extradition if the suspect is merely ’on loan’ to the US and not ’extradited’ proper - as the US embassy cable suggests?

Legal Safeguards under Temporary Surrender

The retired Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman (who testified at the first extradition hearing in February) wrote to SwedenVersusAssange.com and explained that Sweden’s Act regarding Criminal Extradition (Lag 1957:668 om Utlämning för Brott) requires the Swedish government to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to exercise the "conditional release" mechanism.

Sundberg-Weitman notes, however, that the government could ignore that requirement with little risk to itself; the legal and/or political repercussions, if any, would most likely be negligible. They would in any event be too late to be of any use to Julian Assange, who would have already been turned over to the U.S.

Bearing in mind that the the Swedish Courts (Stockholm District Court, Svea Court of Appeal) granted the prosecutor’s application to have Julian Assange arrested without seriously considering the principle of proportionality and that the Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision - it is rather likely that the Supreme Court would approve a request by the government to have Assange extradited to the US.

Will Sweden extradite Julian Assange to the US?

''Certainly Assange’s lawyers would mount a very vigorous opposition [to extradition] in either case [Sweden/UK], in London in particular. Past U.S. extradition requests for criminals from the UK have faced vigorous opposition, and a number of people have successfully resisted that through appeals through the House of Lords and ultimately all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights. We can anticipate lengthy litigation. - John B. Bellinger III

Both the UK and Sweden refuse to guarantee that they will not extradite Julian Assange to the United States. Political and military extraditions are expressly prohibited under the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States, so this refusal is unusual. Moreover, it is likely that the US will request extradition on charges that are not overtly political (see below).

Shortly after issuing the EAW and Interpol Red Notice to 188 countries, the prosecutor Marianne Ny originally stated that extradition to the United States was ’out of the question’ (05 December 2010) - but her statements were later redacted (see Prosecution).

The Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has adopted several strategies in order to lessen the pressure on him to provide assurances that Julian Assange will not be extradited to the United States:

1. Reinfeldt claims that the decision to extradite Julian Assange is up to the courts, not the executive.

- This is false. Sweden’s extradition treaty with the United States explicitly prohibits political and military extraditions. The final decision lies in the hands of the executive, who can block an extradition if it believes that political/military motivations underlie the extradition order. However, it it difficult to prove the underlying motivations of an extradition order. The US is likely to issue an order under charges that are not overtly political (see below).

- It is likely that the United States will decide to charge Julian Assange with a number of offences (whether or not in conjunction with espionage) that are seemingly not political offences. The US Department of Justice has broadened its attack to include a possible indictment under the federal computer crimes statute, which it would argue was a non-political offence. Sweden is likely to consent to such an extradition given its close relationship with the US and the argument that the offences he is being sought for are not political in nature.

- It is difficult for an individual to prove that the underlying motivations for an extradition are political, especially where the requesting state is a close political ally, which is the case of the United States both for Sweden and for the UK. Swedish troops are under NATO-US command in Afghanistan. Sweden was one of the first countries to send fighter jets to Libya at the request of the US and, in June, the Swedish parliament voted to send marines to Libya together with more fighter jets (See Political Interference).

2. Reinfeldt claims that it is not up to Sweden, but up to the UK, whether or not Julian Assange is extradited to the United States.

- Sweden is shifting attention away from the fact that the final decision of whether to extradite Julian Assange to the United States or to block it is an executive decision.

- Under EU law, Sweden should only initiate Julian Assange’s onward extradition if and when the UK gives its agreement, but the UK has little incentive to block an extradition order if Sweden does not take the step to do so first. Moreover, legal commentators in the UK have stated that it is likely that the UK would consent to Julian Assange’s extradition from Sweden (this is likely to raise less criticism and mobilisation if Julian Assange is not physically under UK custody).

- Sweden has in the recent past violated international treaties in relation to surrendering foreign nationals into US custody to be interrogated and tortured (case of extraordinary rendition, Agiza v. Sweden at the European Court of Human Rights). Furthermore, Amnesty International and the UN Committee against Torture criticised Sweden because it rendered two refugees to the CIA who were then tortured under the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. (A documentary with the testimony of tortured refugees who had been granted asylum and then rendered to the CIA by Sweden was aired on Swedish television on 5 October 2011.

- Diplomatic assurances that the person extradited will not be subjected to torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment are not a sufficient guarantee to prevent Julian Assange from suffering such treatment while in US custody, or to realize a fair trial in the United States, given the politicization of the allegations against him.

- The UK and Swedish governments can choose to allege that Julian Assange is not wanted for political offences, and will not interfere with a judicial decision (despite the fact that this ’judicial decision’ would be taken by the secret grand jury in Virginia where there is no judge or defence counsel).

Given that Julian Assange is neither a citizen nor permanent resident in Sweden or the UK, these countries have little incentive to afford him the type of protection they would afford one of their own citizens or permanent residents. Moreover, it is safe to assume that both the UK and Swedish government have come under pressure to comply with the United States’ upcoming request for Julian Assange’s extradition (these pressures by the US government proved effective in the extra-judicial and arbitrary denial of service by Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Western Union & Bank of America of WikiLeaks donations).

Wouldn’t the UK be more likely to extradite Assange than Sweden?

''If the Justice Department were actually to issue charges against Mr. Assange while he was still in Britain there could be potentially a decision for the UK government whether to extradite him to Sweden or to the United States, and that could get to be a complicated clash between the two different requests which would put the UK government in a difficult position. - John B. Bellinger III on Fox News

Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

This argument fails on several points:

- The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

- Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

- In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

- The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

United States: Secret Grand Jury

The United States is looking to charge Julian Assange under the Espionage Act among other charges:

A secret grand jury located in Alexandria, Virginia, only six kilometres from central Washington D.C., has been meeting since December 2010. The grand jury decides whether to bring charges against Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks.

- The grand jury is held in secret, with no judge and no defence counsel. Four prosecutors are imposing subpoenas on individuals who are affiliated with WikiLeaks and on social networking sites including Twitter to disclose information about WikiLeaks’ work.

- A respected former chief judge of New York’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, famously coined the expression a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich", given that prosecutors have complete control over the process.

- The grand jury consists of 16-23 people. Given the high incidence of government employees and public and military contractors living in this geographical area, it is likely that a majority of the components of the grand jury are ideologically opposed to WikiLeaks’ work.

- The grand jury will most likely decide to prosecute, even on weak grounds that would not withstand the minimum threshold under normal criminal processes.

- It is plausible that the grand jury has already decided to prosecute, and that a sealed indictment has been issued for extradition and will be unsealed when US extradition is convenient.

United States: What would happen if Julian Assange was extradited?

The suspected whistleblower Bradley Manning has been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. Julian Assange is likely to face similar treatment or worse: he will not be afforded the same constitutional rights as Bradley Manning because he is a foreign national. Over the past ten years the United States has developed a doctrine that denies basic rights to foreign political prisoners.

The 2012 US presidential elections are an opportunity to seize upon for the campaign trail: Julian Assange’s prosecution will probably be used by presidential candidates to show they are strong on "national security". Senators and presidential candidates have already called on the Obama administration to take an aggressive approach.

Republican candidates have urged the US treasury and Department of State to label WikiLeaks as a terrorist organisation, and to ’illegally assassinate’ or kidnap him, and treat him and his associates as ’enemy combatants’.

In other words, internal political pressure is calling for the United States to illegally apply torture in order to extract information, subject him to inhumane and degrading treatment as they have with Bradley Manning, or sentence Julian Assange to the death penalty. Public pronouncements by US senators and television personalities amount to hate speech and persecution (see Timing: EAW & INTERPOL Red Notice ). Source and other news justice4assange.com

Footnote: Now it goes without saying, there are some pretty sharp brains at blogger, but if someone could explain the sense of what I am about to demonstrate, then I would surely listen. (First)

As you are well aware, I upload lots of pics, and invariably I want them in the order that I upload them. Now I'm going to upload five test pics (the max) in the same order as they are numbered. Watch what happens.







The pics were upped in order 54321. Now can someone explain the fucking logic in that? Brains are grand things, but they are no good without a bit of common sense. It wasn't always thus by the way, this is a relatively new 'improvement.'

Julian Assange High Court Proceedings in Plainspeak

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange awaits court decision on extradition
By Robert Stevens
4 February 2012

The UK Supreme Court concluded a two-day hearing Thursday of an appeal by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, challenging his extradition to Sweden on unsubstantiated and contested allegations of sexual assault made in August 2010.

The appeal was heard by seven justices, who after legal submissions from the defence and prosecution, said they would reserve judgement for several weeks.

Assange was arrested in London on December 7, 2010, under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He has now spent 424 days under house arrest.

At every stage in the attempt to extradite Assange, he has been denied his basic democratic rights. He has never been charged with any crime in Sweden or any other country. Even on his arrest warrant, he is not designated as an “accused” person.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK. Following the decision by the High Court in December 5 to allow his extradition, Assange’s appeal is the last legal avenue open to prevent his removal under the EAW system.

Assange was only reluctantly allowed by the High Court in December to petition the Supreme Court and only on one specific issue deemed to be of “general public importance”. This was “Whether a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003?”

Assange’s legal team have noted that—despite the fact that a previous case established that the Swedish National Police Board was the country’s sole issuing authority for EAWs—it was Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny who issued the EAW for Assange’s arrest.

Assange’s legal team produced a document outlining their case against extradition. It states “that the Swedish public prosecutor is not a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of sections 2(2) and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’).”

Accordingly, she “cannot issue a valid EAW, because she lacks the impartiality and the independence from both the executive and the parties which constitute essential features of the exercise of judicial authority, under domestic and European law.... In short, the prosecutor, as the party with conduct of the criminal investigation into the allegations against the Appellant, cannot act as a judge in relation to the same action.”

Outlining the provocative and partisan actions pursued by Ny, the summary states, “As the facts of this case demonstrate, the prosecutor is in an adversarial relationship with the Appellant. For example, she has applied to the Swedish court for an order for his detention; and has made submissions opposing his appeal against that order. Contrary to the finding of the High Court, she cannot in these circumstances validly exercise ‘judicial authority’ over his case.”

On Wednesday, Assange’s lawyer, Dinah Rose, an expert in civil liberties and European Union law, argued before the court that the inclusion of public prosecutors in the issuing of extradition warrants was “contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law.”

Rose cited historical legal texts, including the Roman Codex Iustinianus, which states, “We decree by general law that no one ought to be his own judge or to administer justice in his own cause. For it is very unjust to give somebody permission to pass judgement in his own cause.”

Giving a detailed overview of the history of the extradition system, Rose stated that the evolution of extradition law gave a “very strong indication” that “decisions with serious implications for personal liberties should only be taken by independent judicial authorities.”

Describing the wording of the final EAW framework agreement, used throughout Europe, she explained that word judicial is used “over and over again”. She added, “It is simply not possible to conclude” that the issuing judicial authority could include a public prosecutor. An executing judicial authority could only be a judge.

Some European states have approached the question of what is and is not a judicial authority with “extraordinary vagueness and casualness,” she said.

On Thursday, Clare Montgomery, representing the Swedish authorities, opposed Rose’s argument—claiming that the Swedish prosecutor was not adjudicating between two parties, so there was no issue of partiality.

This claim does not withstand scrutiny.

On August 21, 2010, based on a review of the allegations, an initial arrest warrant against Assange was withdrawn by Stockholm’s chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, who stated, “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”

Within 10 days of the case being thrown out, it was revived, following the intervention of Claes Borgstrom, a Social Democratic Party figure and lawyer for the two women, and a friend of one of them, without any evidentiary foundation.

After questioning by police, Assange was never charged with any crime during his time in Sweden. At every stage, he cooperated with the police investigation into the allegations. He even remained in Sweden beyond his scheduled time there. It was only after Assange had received authorisation to leave Sweden and had left the country that Ny issued a new domestic arrest warrant against him.

On September 1, Ny stated that reversing another prosecutor’s decision was “not an ordinary [procedure], but not so out of the ordinary either.”

This is despite the fact that Ny is not normally actively involved for the prosecution in individual cases. It was only on the basis of her position as a senior prosecutor, an anomaly of Swedish law, that Borgstrom was able to appeal to her to reopen the case.

Following Ny’s actions, and still facing no charges, Assange offered to make himself available to be questioned by telephone, video link, etc.—a request that was consistently declined by the Swedish authorities.

At the Belmarsh Magistrates Court in February 2011, the decision to extradite Assange was upheld, despite the fact that the alleged offences are not extraditable ones in the UK.

Such has been the extreme narrowing of all his legal options that the Supreme Court hearing was reduced to a debate over whether the EAW warrant should have been issued by Ny, without questioning the issuing of the warrant in the first place.

The undemocratic and arbitrary European Arrest Warrant system was imposed as part of the “war on terror”. In her submission to the court, Montgomery acknowledged this, commenting that the EAW agreement was “done at great speed, coming as it did on the heels of 9/11.”

Grave precedents are being set by the persecution of Assange.

The EAW framework was incorporated into British law under the Extradition Act 2003. But even this act provides an unequivocal requirement that arrest and extradition to EU countries can only be carried out with the purpose of being prosecuted, where the person is accused.

Were the Supreme Court to reject Assange’s appeal, he could be extradited to Sweden within days. From there he could face possible extradition and prosecution on terrorism charges in the United States, with which Sweden has a “temporary surrender” agreement. wsws.org

Julia Gillard You Are Some Piece of Work

....senior US officials subsequently asked to be “more closely consulted” on future (Australian) FOI releases.

Which I think, puts the whole thing in a nutshell.

Oh! and not forgetting the Greens in all this.

Australian government reinforces conspiracy against Assange
By Mike Head
12 April 2012

In the lead-up to the impending UK Supreme Court decision on the fate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the Australian Labor government has taken several steps that underscore its close involvement in the global operation against him by the Obama administration. Far from protecting any of the basic legal rights of Assange—an Australian citizen—the Gillard government is doing everything it can to help Washington railroad him to jail and silence WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, Britain’s highest court is expected to hand down its decision next week. Assange has appealed against rulings by lower courts to extradite him to Sweden to be questioned by a prosecutor on concocted and baseless sexual assault charges. Despite not being charged with a single offence, he has now spent nearly 500 days under house arrest.

The UK court is Assange’s last legal avenue of appeal in Britain. If he loses the case he can be removed to Sweden within days, where he could be held in solitary confinement for months. From there, he is set to be extradited to the United States, where he was indicted by a secret Grand Jury in December 2010. Under the reactionary Espionage Act of 1917, Assange could face lengthy imprisonment or the death penalty.

Even if Assange succeeds in his UK appeal, the US authorities are likely to unseal the Grand Jury indictment and seek his extradition direct to the US—assisted by the Australian government.

Evidently acting at the behest of the US, the Gillard government has blocked a freedom of information (FOI) application for the release of diplomatic cables between Canberra and Washington that could reveal their intimate collaboration in the drive to frame-up Assange.

Late last month, the Australian Foreign Affairs Department delayed any release of the cables until at least late May—well after the UK appeal has been decided. In a letter to the FOI authorities, the department said some of the cables were “highly classified” and “working out precisely where the sensitivities lie” would be “an involved, complex task.”

The department stated that it had yet to finalise consultation with the prime minister’s department and had not begun discussions with US authorities, a process expected to take at least four to six weeks. Such “consultations” will veto the release of any information that could further shed light on the conspiracy against Assange.

Last December, Fairfax newspapers used FOI laws to obtain cables that showed Canberra was fully aware, in December 2010, that WikiLeaks was the target of an “unprecedented” investigation to determine whether Assange could be charged under US law.

Concerned by this politically damaging disclosure, Washington stepped in. According to Age and Sydney Morning Herald correspondent Philip Dorling, Australian government sources said senior US officials subsequently asked to be “more closely consulted” on future FOI releases.

At the end of February, also acting in concert with the White House, the Gillard government secured the passage of legislation that would cut off any attempt by Assange to avoid extradition to the US by returning to Australia if he wins the UK appeal.

With virtually no coverage in the media, the Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act 2012 was rubberstamped in the Senate on February 28. The most critical provision allows the government to override restrictions on extraditing people accused of “political offences” against foreign governments.

Previously, extradition had to be refused if the alleged crime was political in nature. Now “terrorist”-related offences will no longer be exempt from extradition. This provision could well be used against Assange. US Vice President Joseph Biden has described Assange as a “high tech terrorist,” a charge repeated by others.

The amendments to the Australian Extradition Act further permit the government to introduce regulations, with little public scrutiny, to do likewise for other offences, such as espionage or sedition.

These changes were foreshadowed last November by Jeffrey Bleich, the US Ambassador to Australia. Asked by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Anne Davies whether the US would expect Australia to extradite him if he returned home, he replied: “We will have to see whether there is an offence against any person, and Australia will have to evaluate its own extradition obligations.”

The extradition changes are part of the Labor government’s broader attacks on basic legal and political rights. The amendments expedite the extradition process and make it easier for Canberra to authorise extraditions that could lead to torture, abuse or the death penalty. They also allow the government to domestically prosecute people, like Assange and former Guantánamo Bay detainee David Hicks, accused of crimes in the US.

It should be noted that the Greens, who provide the minority Gillard government with the votes it needs to remain in office, voted for the extradition legislation. Despite posturing in the past as defenders of Assange, Greens Senators raised no objection to the pivotal “political offences” changes that could be utilised against him.

In an attempt to justify its complicity in the Assange witch hunt, the government has reiterated Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s unsubstantiated and highly prejudicial allegations that Assange and WikiLeaks acted illegally in publishing thousands of secret diplomatic cables from the US and other countries.

Late last month, responding to a letter from a citizen challenging the government’s role, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon’s representative insisted that the government’s concern was the “reckless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous” practice of making “unauthorised disclosure of classified material.”

This accusation, which insinuates that Assange is guilty of espionage, follows the line firmly set by Gillard from the outset. Just as the Grand Jury was being secretly convened, Gillard branded the WikiLeaks publication of US cables as “illegal” and instigated an investigation by the intelligence and police agencies to unearth whatever material they could find for use against Assange.

The real source of the fury in Washington and Canberra is that the documents published by WikiLeaks have exposed the US-led war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other crimes, conspiracies and machinations perpetrated by governments around the world. Millions of people have been able to see how assassinations, invasions, wars, coups, renditions and other acts of aggression and repression are organised by the imperialist powers, including Australia. WSWS.org

Julian Assange a Possible Maybe Perhaps?

Which makes me somewhat reluctant to offer it up, but what the hell.

WikiLeaks' Assange 'very likely' to lose extradition fight

Barrister pokes ahead of Thursday's hearing

An expert in UK extradition law says it's “very likely” that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will lose his battle against extradition to Sweden, where he's wanted for questioning in an investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations.

Julian Knowles, a barrister for law firm Matrix Chambers and the author of books on extradition, told BBC Radio that the legal and factual bases underpinning Assange's defense during three days of extradition hearings in London earlier this month weren't persuasive. As a result, Chief Magistrate Judge Howard Riddle, who is scheduled to deliver his judgment on Thursday, is likely to rule in favor of Swedish prosecutors seeking Assange's extradition, he said.


“From what I read and heard about the Assange extradition hearing, I think it's very likely that the Swedish prosecutor will prevail and extradition will be ordered by the senior district judge,” Knowles said during an interview on BBC Radio's Law in Action program. “In a nutshell, the two preliminary arguments that the defense are running are (one) the prosecutor has no power to issue the warrants and (two) that Mr Assange is only really wanted for questioning and isn't really wanted for trial and you have to be wanted for trial in order to be properly extradited.”

Knowles went on to say: “There is no doubt that a Swedish prosecutor does have the power to issue warrants.” He also said that the Swedish prosecutor handling the case “has made clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence ahead of trial, he will be tried.”

Knowles shot down other claims made by Assange's legal team, including the argument that the alleged behavior being investigated, even if true, didn't amount to extradition offenses. Allegations leveled by one of Assange's accusers involve the use of force and would “obviously” constitute sexual assault if tried in the UK.more

Wikileaks opens online store in attempt to raise funds.

Andrew MacKinlay MP: A Rare Breed

.
A Pol with integrity, they don't come rarer than that.

I would go as far to say even rarer than me agreeing with a Tory rag (Daily Mail) and a Tory leader (Cameron) but I have been following the Wail's campaign and Cameron's efforts in the house on behalf of Gary McKinnon, who embarrassingly, for the Pentagon, hacked into their zillion dollar security system and who now want to bury McKinnon underground in some hell hole of a supermax prison for decades to come.

And a word for Andrew MacKinlay, it might be quite noble to resign on principle but don't you think you ought to stay and fight your corner, or better said Gary McKinnon's corner.

Labour MP resigns in fury over Gary McKinnon: Veteran who stood up for Asperger's victim quits over colleagues' hypocrisy

Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay is quitting Westminster in disgust after MPs failed to stop computer hacker Gary McKinnon's extradition to the US.

The respected backbencher says he is 'disillusioned' about Parliament's inability to hold ministers to account.

He told the Daily Mail, which is campaigning for Mr McKinnon to stand trial here, that he had been frustrated for some time by MPs' willingness to follow party 'diktats', even if they contradicted their private views.

The Commons vote last week over Britain's unbalanced extradition arrangements with the US had been the final straw.

'It crystallised a view of Parliament I have had for some time,' Mr MacKinlay said.

The 60-year-old was one of just ten Labour MPs who had the courage to vote for a review of the 2003 Extradition Treaty in the wake of controversy over the case of the Asperger's Syndrome sufferer.

But 74 Labour MPs, who had previously signed motions backing Mr McKinnon, or demanding an extradition review, failed to oppose the party line.

The review move was defeated by 290 votes to 236.

Mr McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp said last night she was 'delighted' at the MP's decision....more

The Daily Mail campaign links.


This is the latest article by Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay

This feeble wobbling on McKinnon is bad for democracy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200270/ANDREW-MacKINLAY-This-feeble-wobbling-McKinnon-bad-democracy.html#ixzz0MfNDI3Ie


Trust in Parliament has never been lower. Respect for politicians has been heavily diminished, not just by the Commons expenses scandal but also because of the failure of MPs and Ministers to be straight with the public.

Lack of conviction, weasel words, submission to the party whipping machines and a reluctance to abide by previous pledges have all played their insidious part in undermining the reputation of the Commons.

Public faith is hardly likely to be restored by this week's vote on the extradition to the U.S. of Gary McKinnon, whom the Americans want to put on trial over charges of hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems...more

It was back in April 07 that I blogged about Gary McKinnon and the one sided extradition policy that the UK enjoys with the US.

UK Hacker Loses Extradition Fight

Pissed, seriously pissed am I to hear this, a few words from the text takes the words from my mouth.

Alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that "he would fry", would be among issues raised, Mr Cooper said.
And make no mistake fry he will, after the US has nailed him to a cross....more

Previous

G'day.Possums.
I have written previously on the shabby behaviour of the British Governments acquiescence in giving up one of it's own to the American injustice system and the even shabbier practice of fast tracking extradition requests from the US.
In both cases that I cited the alleged offences were committed on British soil, now it seems that Blair's antipodean counterpart, another eager fellator of Bush's cock, Howard of Australia (legacy of a mean nation) is throwing one of it's citizens to the baying pack at the American Department of Justice.
The same DoJ you no doubt recall headed by the despicable liar and perjurer Alberto Gonzales. Given then that this wonderful level of international cooperation exists can we expect of successive governments to be equally cooperative and acceding to shall we say a request from the international criminal court for the arrest of Tony Blair on the charge of war crimes, or that of Bush himself or one of his cabal on crimes against humanity?
What action then will the Us be taking against...more

And more

Fast Tracked Laws

Fast Tracked Laws.
Fast Tacked To Where. (Guantanamo Bay, Secret Prisons, or just Good Ol' US Ones?)
Fast Tracked To What. (American Justice?)
Fast Tracked To Whom. (A trusted partner?)

Or is that the new euphemism for riding rough shod over due process?

White collar criminals have been the main targets of draconian of new British "fast tracked" laws designed to speed up the extradition of terrorists to the US.
No alleged terrorists have yet to face US courts using the new rules which allow suspects to be sped through British courts without American prosecutors having to show a reasonable case against them.

The legislation brought in as a response to the September 11 attacks has seen the time taken from the arrest of a suspect to their removal for trial in America drop from nearly three years to just over eleven months.
But the home office admits that none of the twenty nine suspects so far sent to the US are alleged terrorists.

The new statistics are set to reignite the row over over the extradition of the so called Nat West Three were sent to the Us last July and charged with fraud relating to the collapsed energy giant Enron.
The row flared after British authorities investigating the alleged offences found their was no case to answer. snip.

Also included was Jeremy Crook, an IT executive who was flown shackled to to US agents to America in September last year. He is due to stand trial in August next year....more

Assange Lodges Extradition Appeal

Julian Assange lodges extradition appeal

WikiLeaks founder's lawyers file appeal against his extradition to Sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assault

Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, have lodged papers to appeal against his extradition from Britain to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The high court in London confirmed it had received documents to challenge the ruling made at Belmarsh magistrates court, south London, last week. No date has been set for a hearing.

The 39-year-old Australian had always planned to appeal if he failed to escape the European arrest warrant (EAW) at the first attempt. He faces being sent to Sweden within 10 days if his appeal is unsuccessful.

Last week Assange dismissed the decision to extradite him as a "rubber-stamping process". It came as no surprise, he said, but was wrong. "There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merit of the allegations made against me, no consideration or examination of even the complaints made in Sweden and, of course, we have always known we would appeal."

He has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December, and has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.

Assange's lawyers argued he would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the warrant was invalid because he had not been charged with any offence and the alleged assaults were not grounds for extradition. Assange fears removal to Sweden will make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of the US embassy cables. The US has been investigating the WikLeaks website, although no charges have been laid. Sweden would have to ask the UK for any onward extradition.

Assange faces four allegations, the most serious that, during a visit to Stockholm, he had sex with a woman, Miss B, while she was sleeping, without a condom and without her consent. Three counts of sexual assault are alleged by another woman, Miss A. If found guilty of the rape charge he could face up to four years in prison.

Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate at the extradition hearing, acknowledged "considerable adverse publicity" against Assange in Sweden but said if there had been any irregularities in the Swedish system the best place to examine them was in a Swedish trial. Gruniad

Assange and Others Would Be Safe Under Commonsense Irish Extradition Laws

Unlike us Brits, I guess the Irish don't enjoy a special relationship with the US.

Garland ruling may make extradition more difficult

Carol Coulter
March 8, 2012

ANALYSIS: Judge ruled offences carried out here, even if affecting other jurisdictions, should be prosecuted here

MR JUSTICE John Edwards ruled earlier this year that Seán Garland should not be extradited to the United States to face conspiracy charges in connection with the alleged forgery of US dollars.

While four main arguments were put forward by his legal team, the High Court judge just ruled on the first: that the offence involved was an offence in Ireland, and should be prosecuted here.

He stated that in this age of modern communications, where much serious fraud is transnational (the same could be said for internet crime), the common law must evolve to reflect the need to be able to prosecute in the jurisdiction where a substantial portion of the crime is committed.

Section 15 of the 1965 Extradition Act states: “Extradition shall not be granted where the offence for which it is requested is regarded under the law of the State as having been committed in the State.”

Mr Justice Edwards said it was necessary to combat procedural challenges to prosecutions with an extraterritorial element arguing that, for example, if money was lodged to an account abroad, the offence in fact took place there.

“The Irish courts should, as a matter of good sense in the times in which we live, be entitled to assert jurisdiction in respect of a conspiracy formed in Ireland to effect harm by means of an unlawful act or acts to be committed principally in, or against, another state, where it can be reasonably asserted that the conspiracy, if carried into effect, would be harmful, or potentially harmful, either directly or indirectly, to the interests of this State,” he said.

Yesterday, Garland’s lawyers were informed the State would not appeal this judgment to the Supreme Court.

In the case of the student hackers, the Fine Gael website was hosted in Arizona in the US, making the attack on it potentially an offence under US law. But it may also be an offence under Irish law.

According to an extradition law expert, the Garland ruling means a whole slew of offences cannot now be the basis for extradition to the US, where they are also an offence under Irish law.

“Julian Assange could not be extradited to the US from Ireland,” the expert said, referring to the controversial founder of WikiLeaks.

Two UK citizens are fighting extradition to the US for hacking and computer offences.

Hacker Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was arrested in 2002 after he hacked into military computers looking for evidence of UFOs. His case is still before the courts.

Richard O’Dwyer set up a website, TV Shack, which provided links to other websites where users could access content but did not host any of the content itself. This is a copyright offence in the US, but is not an offence in the UK. He was arrested in 2010 and took the site down, but earlier this year a magistrates’ court ruled his extradition could go ahead. This is likely to be appealed. Irish Times

Julian Assange Loses Appeal Against Extradition

Now how surprising is that?


Something previous:

But it is that very same treatment of Bradley Manning that may yet be the saviour of Julian Assange. Whereas I don't hold much hope out for Assange at the hands of the crimson robed, bewigged relics of the past that represent the head of our own judicial serpent, he might, as Pilger points out, fair better with the European Court of Human Rights, because I think it is inevitable that this is where Assange will ultimately end up. Because again as John Pilger notes: more

- - -

Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition

High court judges rule the WikiLeaks founder should face accusations of rape in Sweden

The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has lost his high court appeal against extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley handed down their judgment in the 40-year-old Australian's appeal against a European arrest warrant issued by Swedish prosecutors after rape and sexual assault accusations made by two Swedish women following his visit to Stockholm in August 2010.

The decision means Assange could be removed to Sweden within 10 days, though it is more likely that the earliest time he would find himself on Swedish soil would be around 26 November.

Assange has 14 days to seek leave to appeal to the supreme court if he believes there is a wider issue of "public importance" at stake in the decision. If he is successful in persuading the high court of that, he is likely to remain on conditional bail until a hearing, which is unlikely to take place until next year.

If he is denied the right to appeal then British law enforcement officers will be responsible for arranging his removal to Sweden within 10 days.

The decision comes three and a half months after the end of an appeal hearing in July, when lawyers for Assange argued the arrest warrant was invalid because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of the two women he allegedly had sex with.

Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, had claimed the warrant "misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone, an invalid warrant".

He recounted evidence of the encounter on the night of 13 August 2010 between Assange and a woman known as AA, who was hosting Assange at her apartment, during which AA said Assange tried to have sex with her without a condom.

Emmerson said there was no evidence of a lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation contained in the arrest warrant.

He argued the court had to decide only on whether the arrest warrant in connection with the events was valid on "strict and narrow" legal grounds.

Acting for the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Clare Montgomery QC said the charges detailed in the warrant were valid allegations and said AA, and another woman, known as SW, had described "circumstances in which they did not freely consent without coercion".

She said the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."

In February, when Assange challenged the extradition moves at Westminster magistrates court, his legal team warned their client could be at "real risk" of the death penalty of detention in Guantánamo Bay because they feared the US authorities would request his extradition from Sweden to face charges relating to WikiLeaks obtaining and publishing hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents.

The senior district judge threw out the appeal and ordered his extradition, and a week later Assange appealed to the high court.

He changed his legal team and adopted a less vocal strategy.

Assange has in effect been under house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk since December 2010. He has to sign in at a local police station every day, he wears an electronic tag that monitors his movements and he has to be back inside the house by 10pm each night.

Swedish prosecutors said Assange has been "detained in his absence on probable cause suspected of rape (less severe crime), sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." gruniad

Julian Assange Appeal Latest + A Look At The Dubious European Arrest Warrant

Dubious, as in the European Arrest Warrant as a whole, not particularly, although it is covered, Julian Assange's own specific warrant. Story below.

Julian Assange to launch fresh extradition appeal in high court

WikiLeaks founder will begin new legal challenge against attempts to send him to Sweden to face sexual assault charges
11 July 2011

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder wanted in Sweden over accusations of sexual assault, will launch a fresh appeal on Tuesday against his extradition at the high court in London.

The Australian will begin the latest stage of his legal challenge against attempts to send him to Sweden to face charges relating to alleged incidents with two women during a trip to Stockholm in August 2010. One accusation, that he had sex with a woman while she was asleep, would amount to rape under Swedish law if proved. Both women had previously had consenting sex with Assange. He denies any wrongdoing.

Swedish authorities secured a European arrest warrant in December and shortly afterwards he was detained by British police and bailed. At his first appeal in February, Westminster magistrates court – sitting at Belmarsh – ordered that he should be extradited, despite his defence alleging he would not get a fair trial and that the extradition attempt was politically motivated. The arrest warrant came as WikiLeaks was releasing thousands of classified US diplomatic cables it had obtained through a whistleblower.

Assange's legal team argued that the conduct of the Swedish prosecutor amounted to an "abuse of process" because the allegations against him were initially dismissed and then reopened, the prosecutor had refused Assange's offer of an interview and documents had not been made available to him in English. They also claimed the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, was "biased against men". Westminster magistrates found against Assange and ordered his extradition to Sweden.

Assange has claimed this would make it easier for US authorities to seek his extradition to face possible charges over his release in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of classified documents including the US diplomatic cables and military logs from Afghanistan and Iraq. Before their unsuccessful appeal in January, Assange's legal team warned there was "a real risk" he could face the death penalty in the US or detention in Guantánamo Bay.

Assange has appointed a new legal team for Tuesday's hearing. His previous representative, media lawyer Mark Stephens, has been replaced by Gareth Peirce, who has represented the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and Moazzam Begg, a British Muslim who was held at Guantánamo. Ben Emmerson QC, who specialises in European human rights law, will be Assange's barrister, replacing Geoffrey Robertson QC, who acted for him in January.

The changes are thought to be part of a more conciliatory approach by Assange. Peirce's office would not comment on their strategy on Monday, but she has been previously quoted indicating the need for sensitivity and respect in the case.

"Each of the human beings involved deserves respect and consideration," she reportedly wrote to former US senator Tom Hayden for an article in the Nation, a US magazine. "It is hoped that whatever steps as are required to be taken in the future will be taken thoughtfully, with sensitivity and with such respect."

Assange recently filmed an online fundraising advert in which he appeared to take credit for inspiring the uprising in Egypt. The commercial spoofs the MasterCard ads, saying: "Fighting legal cases across five countries: $1m" and "added cost due to house arrest: £500,000" before concluding with Assange watching footage on his laptop of Egyptian protesters streaming towards Tahrir Square with the voiceover: "Watching the world change as a result of your work: priceless. There are some people that don't like change. For everyone else there is WikiLeaks."

WikiLeaks issued a statement in June marking Assange's six months under house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, the 10-bedroom country home of Vaughan Smith, founder of the Frontline club in London. Assange celebrated his 40th birthday there on Sunday with about 100 guests.

WikiLeaks said Assange had not been charged with a crime in any country and complained his conditions were "excessive and dehumanising".

The case will be heard by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley in court four of the Royal Courts of Justice and will begin at 10.30am. It is scheduled to last for two days. If Assange loses the case he could yet appeal to the supreme court. Guardian

- - -

This would be entirely laughable if the consequences weren't as serious as they are.

Assange faces enforced leisure to ponder folly of a law passed in haste
Mary Kostakidis
July 12, 2011

As Julian Assange's extradition appeal begins today in London, the British government is considering a parliamentary review which recommended drastic changes to the European Arrest Warrant legislation. Widely regarded as a seriously flawed instrument, the extradition mechanism that will decide Assange's immediate future was agreed to immediately after September 11, 2001. Its purpose was to enable speedy prosecution across Europe of suspects wanted for terrorism and serious crime under a warrant that could be honoured with minimal scrutiny.

There are two serious problems with the way this law operates: the failure to protect the human rights of the accused, such as a guarantee of a fair trial; and its misuse. A vast number of warrants have been issued, predominantly to prosecute trivial offences or matters that would be regarded as civil matters in Britain.

Requesting states do not even need to provide any evidence. And for 32 listed crimes there is no requirement to prove double criminality. That is, the alleged conduct need not be regarded as a crime in the country from which an accused is extradited. If one European Union state provides a different definition of an offence but the same conduct would not meet the definition of the offence in the other country, the person will still be extradited.

Poland issued 5000 warrants in 2008. People have been trawled through the legal system for crimes such as stealing chickens - as in the case of a person extradited to the Czech Republic.

Clearly there has been no respect for the principle of proportionality in the application of the law. David Blunkett, the British home secretary who presided over the law's introduction, says the system needs reform: ''When we agreed to the system we believed people would act rationally.''

A British resident, Jacek Jaskolski, successfully defended a warrant issued by Poland for exceeding his overdraft limit, but the warrant has not been withdrawn, limiting his ability to visit other European countries without fear of arrest.

Even if an individual can successfully defend a warrant, the country seeking his surrender is under no obligation to remove the outstanding warrant. Should Assange successfully resist the warrant issued by Sweden, there is no guarantee he would not face a similar fate.

The treaty needs to be amended to remove this adverse consequence.

The human rights group Fair Trials International says there are many cases in which serious injustices have resulted, such as people serving prison sentences after an unfair trial or being held in detention for years before they can appear before a court to establish their innocence.

A British citizen, Andrew Symeou, was extradited to Greece in 2009 and charged with manslaughter over the death of a man two years earlier. Despite compelling evidence of mistaken identity and the retraction of statements by witnesses who alleged police intimidation, Symeou remained in jail for 11 months before he was released on bail and bound to remain in Greece awaiting his trial.

Two weeks ago, after a four-year ordeal, he was acquitted by a jury, his parents having spent their savings to support his case in the intervening years. The prosecutor himself recommended Symeou be acquitted.

In Assange's case, the original prosecutor, Eva Finne, declared there was no rape case to answer, despite the far broader definition of rape in Swedish law than in Britain. There is no provision for bail under Swedish rape laws, so Assange would remain in jail until the Swedish prosecution case is heard, however long that takes. The miscarriage of justice in Symeou's case would have been avoided if appropriate scrutiny of the evidence by a court in the country granting the extradition were a requirement.

Assange is fighting extradition for a crime that does not exist in Britain. Under Swedish law, rape is not about the withdrawal of consent but rather is defined by the use of physical force in acts of sex. Rape is a category one crime under the European Arrest Warrant regime, though Assange's case involves the most minor version of this charge under Swedish law.

Assange's lawyers say it is unlikely he could be prosecuted on the alleged facts under British law. The magistrate who heard the case said the behaviour would be an offence in Britain, but Britain's leading criminal lawyer, Professor Andrew Ashworth, disagreed.

Only proper scrutiny of the evidence could determine who is right. But that would be immaterial in any case, as there is no double criminality requirement for rape. If a country ticks the ''rape'' box, it doesn't matter if ''minor rape'' as defined by Sweden is not a crime in Britain. Moreover, Assange will be tried in a closed court in a case he believes is politically motivated. How will the world scrutinise proceedings under those circumstances?

Blunkett admits he was not sensitive enough to potential problems. Such oversights have taken a terrible toll on people caught in a system with no proper safeguards, including Assange, an Australian citizen.

Mary Kostakidis is a journalist with an interest in human rights, government and the law. Sydney Morning Herald

John Pilger on The 'Getting' of Assange The Guardian and The US Justice System

''much of the US criminal justice system is corrupt if not lawless''

As John Pilger wades into the Guardian and New York Times, rightly giving them all the stick they deserve, reminding us along the way that both papers are in essence little better than the redtops. Both being so much a part of the established order and champions of the status quo as befits any organisation whose days of glory are past.

Given then that a good deal, though far from all of Pilger's article is taken up on these two papers, some might not consider that the one liner I have chosen above, as being the essential part of his essay.

But it is, it is the very essence, the vital part in fact, if your name is Julian Assange, because it is fundamental to what should now be our greatest concern. That the United States of America should never be allowed to get into its rancid clutches, the person of Julian Assange.

It must never come to pass, never ever. Because should such an occasion arise, Assange will disappear into the US prison system as quickly as the past disappeared down Winston's memory hole. Assange, just like the past, quite literally will never to see the light of day again. (Article to follow)

We have witnessed the treatment dished out to Bradley Manning by the ever vindictive mother and father of all hypocrisy, a country gone rogue, or should I say Nation, Nation under God. One Nation under God where the rule of law counts for absolutely nothing. One Nation under God where civil and human rights are valued just as equally. Yes we have all been witness to the treatment that God's Nation has dished out to Bradley Manning; what on earth might Julian Assange expect? More's the point, what kind of treatment might Assange expect if the US categorise him as ''Terrorist?'' (Again, article to follow)

But it is that very same treatment of Bradley Manning that may yet be the saviour of Julian Assange. Whereas I don't hold much hope out for Assange at the hands of the crimson robed, bewigged relics of the past that represent the head of our own judicial serpent, he might, as Pilger points out, fair better with the European Court of Human Rights, because I think it is inevitable that this is where Assange will ultimately end up. Because again as John Pilger notes:

Should Assange win his High Court appeal in London, he could face extradition direct to the United States. In the past, US officials have synchronised extradition warrants with the conclusion of a pending case. Like its predatory military, American jurisdiction recognises few boundaries.

And the European Court reference:

The "paranoia" is shared by the European Court of Human Rights which has frozen "national security" extraditions from the UK to the US because the extreme isolation and long sentences defendants can expect amounts to torture and inhuman treatment.

Skulduggery abounds here, and from many quarters.

The ‘getting’ of Assange and the smearing of a revolution
By John Pilger
6th October 2011

The High Court in London will soon to decide whether Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct. At the appeal hearing in July, Ben Emmerson QC, counsel for the defence, described the whole saga as "crazy". Sweden's chief prosecutor had dismissed the original arrest warrant, saying there was no case for Assange to answer. Both the women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain.

However, it is not the Swedish judicial system that presents a "grave danger" to Assange, say his lawyers, but a legal device known as a Temporary Surrender, under which he can be sent on from Sweden to the United States secretly and quickly. The founder and editor of WikiLeaks, who published the greatest leak of official documents in history, providing a unique insight into rapacious wars and the lies told by governments, is likely to find himself in a hell hole not dissimilar to the "torturous" dungeon that held Private Bradley Manning, the alleged whistleblower. Manning has not been tried, let alone convicted, yet on 21 April, President Barack Obama declared him guilty with a dismissive "He broke the law".




This Kafka-style justice awaits Assange whether or not Sweden decides to prosecute him. Last December, the Independent disclosed that the US and Sweden had already started talks on Assange's extradition. At the same time, a secret grand jury - a relic of the 18th century long abandoned in this country - has convened just across the river from Washington, in a corner of Virginia that is home to the CIA and most of America's national security establishment. The grand jury is a "fix", a leading legal expert told me: reminiscent of the all-white juries in the South that convicted blacks by rote. A sealed indictment is believed to exist.

Under the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, Assange should be protected, in theory. When he was running for president, Obama, himself a constitutional lawyer, said, "Whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal". His embrace of George W. Bush's "war on terror" has changed all that. Obama has pursued more whistleblowers than any US president. The problem for his administration in "getting" Assange and crushing WikiLeaks is that military investigators have found no collusion or contact between him and Manning, reports NBC. There is no crime, so one has to be concocted, probably in line with Vice President Joe Biden's absurd description of Assange as a "hi-tech terrorist".

Should Assange win his High Court appeal in London, he could face extradition direct to the United States. In the past, US officials have synchronised extradition warrants with the conclusion of a pending case. Like its predatory military, American jurisdiction recognises few boundaries. As the suffering of Bradley Manning demonstrates, together with the recently executed Troy Davis and the forgotten inmates of Guantanamo, much of the US criminal justice system is corrupt if not lawless.




In a letter addressed to the Australian government, Britain's most distinguished human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who now acts for Assange, wrote, "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

These facts, and the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice, have been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, perfidious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet held isolated, tagged and under house arrest - conditions not even meted out to a defendant presently facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife.

Books have been published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the assumption that he is fair game and too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive. On 16 June, the publisher of Canongate Books, Jamie Byng, when asked by Assange for an assurance that the rumoured unauthorised publication of his autobiography was not true, said, "No, absolutely not. That is not the position ... Julian, do not worry. My absolute number one desire is to publish a great book which you are happy with." On 22 September, Canongate released what it called Assange's "unauthorised autobiography" without the author's permission or knowledge. It was a first draft of an incomplete, uncorrected manuscript. "They thought I was going to prison and that would have inconvenienced them," he told me. "It's as if I am now a commodity that presents an incentive to any opportunist."

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, has called the WikiLeaks disclosures "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Indeed, this is part of his current marketing promotion to justify raising the Guardian's cover price. But the scoop belongs to Assange not the Guardian. Compare the paper's attitude towards Assange with its bold support for the reporter threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for revealing the iniquities of Hackgate. Editorials and front pages have carried stirring messages of solidarity from even Murdoch's Sunday Times. On 29 September, Carl Bernstein was flown to London to compare all this with his Watergate triumph. Alas, the iconic fellow was not entirely on message. "It's important not to be unfair to Murdoch," he said, because "he's the most far seeing media entrepreneur of our time" who "put The Simpsons on air" and thereby "showed he could understand the information consumer".

The contrast with the treatment of a genuine pioneer of a revolution in journalism, who dared take on rampant America, providing truth about how great power works, is telling. A drip-feed of hostility runs through the Guardian, making it difficult for readers to interpret the WikiLeaks phenomenon and to assume other than the worst about its founder. David Leigh, the Guardian's "investigations editor", told journalism students at City University that Assange was a "Frankenstein monster" who "didn't use to wash very often" and was "quite deranged". When a puzzled student asked why he said that, Leigh replied, "Because he doesn't understand the parameters of conventional journalism. He and his circle have a profound contempt for what they call the mainstream media". According to Leigh, these "parameters" were exemplified by Bill Keller when, as editor of the New York Times, he co-published the WikiLeaks disclosures with the Guardian. Keller, said Leigh, was "a seriously thoughtful person in journalism" who had to deal with "some sort of dirty, flaky hacker from Melbourne".




Last November, the "seriously thoughtful" Keller boasted to the BBC that he had taken all WikiLeaks' war logs to the White House so the government could approve and edit them. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the New York Times published a series of now notorious CIA-inspired claims claiming weapons of mass destruction existed. Such are the "parameters" that have made so many people cynical about the so-called mainstream media.

Leigh went as far as to mock the danger that, once extradited to America, Assange would end up wearing "an orange jump suit". These were things "he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia". The "paranoia" is shared by the European Court of Human Rights which has frozen "national security" extraditions from the UK to the US because the extreme isolation and long sentences defendants can expect amounts to torture and inhuman treatment.

I asked Leigh why he and the Guardian had adopted a consistently hostile towards Assange since they had parted company. He replied, "Where you, tendentiously, claim to detect a 'hostile toe', others might merely see well-informed objectivity."

It is difficult to find well-informed objectivity in the Guardian's book on Assange, sold lucratively to Hollywood, in which Assange is described gratuitously as a "damaged personality" and "callous". In the book, Leigh revealed the secret password Assange had given the paper. Designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables, its disclosure set off a chain of events that led to the release of all the files. The Guardian denies "utterly" it was responsible for the release. What, then, was the point of publishing the password?

The Guardian's Hackgate exposures were a journalistic tour de force; the Murdoch empire may disintegrate as a result. But, with or without Murdoch, a media consensus that echoes, from the BBC to the Sun, a corrupt political, war-mongering establishment. Assange's crime has been to threaten this consensus: those who fix the "parameters" of news and political ideas and whose authority as media commissars is challenged by the revolution of the internet.




The prize-winning former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook has experience in both worlds."The media, at least the supposedly left-wing component of it," he writes, "should be cheering on this revolution... And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it [even] to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age... Some of [campaign against Assange] clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle [about] how information should be controlled a generation hence [and] the gatekeepers maintaining their control." johnpilger.com

Fast Tracked Laws (subtitled)

Fast Tracked Laws.

Fast Tacked To Where. (Guantanamo Bay, Secret Prisons, or just Good Ol' US Ones?)
Fast Tracked To What. (American Justice?)
Fast Tracked To Whom. (A trusted partner?)

Or is that the new euphemism for riding rough shod over due process?

White collar criminals have been the main targets of draconian of new British "fast tracked" laws designed to speed up the extradition of terrorists to the US.
No alleged terrorists have yet to face US courts using the new rules which allow suspects to be sped through British courts without American prosecutors having to show a reasonable case against them.

The legislation brought in as a response to the September 11 attacks has seen the time taken from the arrest of a suspect to their removal for trial in America drop from nearly three years to just over eleven months.
But the home office admits that none of the twenty nine suspects so far sent to the US are alleged terrorists.

The new statistics are set to reignite the row over over the extradition of the so called Nat West Three were sent to the Us last July and charged with fraud relating to the collapsed energy giant Enron.
The row flared after British authorities investigating the alleged offences found their was no case to answer. snip.

Also included was Jeremy Crook, an IT executive who was flown shackled to to US agents to America in September last year. He is due to stand trial in August next year.

Last October the government defended the treaty because it was "dealing with a trusted partner." But Tory MPs said the law was weighted against UK citizens. They said British authorities had to produce prima facia evidence showing "probable cause" to extradite an American, but the US had only to show that allegations had been made. snip

Five terror suspects are currently fighting extradition to the US, but of the fifty five "fast track" cases cases in the past three years, nine out of ten suspects are facing non-terror charges in the US. During the same period Britain has asked for just fourteen people from America.

To borrow a phrase, "Mister Blair, why do you hate Britain?" Just go, you shabby little man.

From a print article, Mail on Sunday, Feb 18 2007. "White Collar criminals sent to US by terror extradition law." by Jason Lewis.
Emphasis mine.

Update.
the sole reason for his detention was a US extradition request.