Assange Watch

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Mar 2016, 17:55

http://www.hastingsindependentpress.co. ... m-justice/

Open for comments...

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Mar 2016, 18:04

He’s also offered to go to Sweden provided the Swedes give an assurance he will not be extradited to the United States, and Sweden has refused this assurance.

Which is the separation of power issue. The Swedish government have said, however, that he does not face a risk of extradition.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Mar 2016, 18:09

johnhemming2 wrote:
He’s also offered to go to Sweden provided the Swedes give an assurance he will not be extradited to the United States, and Sweden has refused this assurance.
Which is the separation of power issue. The Swedish government have said, however, that he does not face a risk of extradition.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... an-assange

Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.

In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.
Advertisement

Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?

In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain's criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US.

You are a talented propagandist, John Hemming. But you are fooling nobody here.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Mar 2016, 20:41

johnhemming2 wrote: If it were to be me wasting my life living in an Embassy I would go to Sweden.

And the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention don't agree with you.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Mar 2016, 21:31

At times I disagree with the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the UK. I am unlikely to be concerned about disagreeing with a committee of the UN.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 06 Mar 2016, 22:06

johnhemming2 wrote:At times I disagree with the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the UK. I am unlikely to be concerned about disagreeing with a committee of the UN.

And you have every right to your own opinion.

As does Assange. I'm just pointing out who agrees with who. And you seem to agree with those interests that want Assange in US custody. Assange, myself, the UNWGoAD, Craig Murray and almost everybody who posts on Powerswitch think your opinion is wrong.

Phillip Hammond and David Cameron think your opinion is right - or at least that is what they say publicly.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Mar 2016, 22:42

The key thing is what the Swedish government have said.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Mar 2016, 00:13

johnhemming2 wrote:The key thing is what the Swedish government have said.

No it isn't.

But do keep trying...

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Mar 2016, 07:11

Earlier in this thread you indicated that the position of Sweden was important. Now you say it isn't. What has changed?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Mar 2016, 10:38

johnhemming2 wrote:Earlier in this thread you indicated that the position of Sweden was important. Now you say it isn't. What has changed?

Nothing.

Quite obviously, Assange, his lawyers, the UNWGAD and everybody else apart from you, Cameron and Hammond don't believe that Sweden won't extradite him.

Stop treating people like they are stupid, John.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Mar 2016, 12:52

So this is what I quoted before:

from the UN panel report wrote: 26. According to the source, Sweden insisted that Mr. Assange must give up his right to political asylum and be extradited to Sweden, without any guarantee of non-refoulement to the United States. According to the source, Mr. Assange faces a well-founded risk of political persecution and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. In this respect, the Government would like to submit the following.
27. In its reply, the Government of Sweden emphasized that it is important that all countries act in accordance with international human rights standards, including their treaty obligations.
28. The Government firstly found it pertinent to clarify the difference between the procedures pertaining to an EAW and the question concerning a guarantee of non-refoulement or extradition to a third state. The surrendering of persons within the European Union is based on EU-law and the common area for justice and the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgements. The EAW applies throughout the EU and it provides improved and simplified judicial procedures designed to surrender people for the purpose of conducting inter alia a criminal prosecution. In the current case, an EAW has been issued by a Swedish prosecutor due to the fact that Mr. Assange is suspected of serious crime in Sweden and has been detained in his absence for those crimes.
29. The procedures pertaining to extradition is based on multilateral and bilateral treaties as well as on Swedish law, i.e. the Act on Extradition (1957:668). According to the Act, extradition may not be granted unless the criminal act is punishable in Sweden and corresponds to an offence for which imprisonment for one year or more is prescribed by Swedish law. If there is a risk of persecution, or, under certain conditions, if the offense is considered to be a military offense or a political offense, extradition may not be granted. Furthermore, an extradited person may not have the death penalty imposed for the offence. A decision on extradition is taken by the Government, after an investigation and opinion by the Prosecutor General’s Office and, in case the person sought does not consent to extradition, a subsequent decision by the Swedish Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court find that there are any obstacles to extradition, the Government is bound by this decision.
30. The Government of Sweden found it was important to emphasise that, to this date, no request for extradition regarding Mr. Assange has been directed to Sweden. Any discussion about an extradition of Mr. Assange to a third state is therefore strictly hypothetical. Furthermore, as has been explained above, any potential decision for extradition must be preceded by a thorough and careful examination of all the circumstances of the particular case. Such an examination cannot be made before a state has requested extradition of a specific person and specified the reasons invoked in support of the request. In addition, if a person has been surrendered to Sweden pursuant to an EAW, Sweden must obtain the consent of the surrendering state, in this case the United Kingdom, before being able to extradite the person sought to a third country. In light of the above, the Government refutes the submission made by the source that Mr. Assange faces a risk of refoulement to the United States.
31. In any case, the Government holds that the Swedish extradition and EAW procedures, contain sufficient safeguards against any potential extradition in violation of international human rights agreements.
32. In relation to the submission by the source that Sweden is obliged by applicable law and Convention obligations to recognise the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange by the authorities of the Republic of Ecuador, the Government submitted the following.
33. Regrettably, the source does not specify which law and Convention obligations Sweden is obliged to recognize. However, in the Government’s opinion, general international law does not recognize a right of diplomatic asylum as implied by the source. The International Court of Justice has confirmed this fundamental position. The Government would also like to emphasise that the Latin American Convention on Diplomatic Asylum does not constitute general international law. On the contrary, it is a regional instrument and no similar instruments or practices exist elsewhere. Accordingly, the Government does not find itself bound by the aforementioned regulations.
34. It should furthermore be noted that according to relevant international instruments, including the Latin American Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, the right to seek and enjoy asylum does not apply if an applicant as ground of asylum invokes that he or she is wanted for ordinary, non-political, crime (see e.g. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). In this respect, the Government notes that Mr. Assange is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, all non-political crimes, and can therefore not rely on the above legal frameworks in this respect.
35. In light of the above, the Government refutes the source’s allegation that Sweden is obliged by applicable law and Convention obligations to recognise the asylum granted.
36. The source further alleges that Mr. Assange’s detention is arbitrary, and falls under Categories I, II, III and IV as classified by the Working Group. In this regard, the Government of Sweden firstly noted that the source has not explained how the situation of Mr. Assange corresponds to the above-mentioned criteria adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. For example, the Government noted that, except for the source’s mentioning of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is unclear under which other relevant international legal framework, if any, Mr. Assange is invoking his rights.

I have just quoted a longer section from the UN panel report. The key part in this is "In light of the above, the Government refutes the submission made by the source that Mr. Assange faces a risk of refoulement to the United States. "

Now the view of the Swedish government is that he faces no risk of refoulement to the US.

It doesn't take much to get the Swedish government to confirm a view that he faces no risk of extradition to the US.

I would ask simply what is the difference between this statement and the Swedish Government giving an assurance. All are words.

The fact is that separation of powers prevents the government giving an assurance, but saying he faces no risk is pretty good.

Additionally he could ask for an assurance from the UK on permission for onward extradition.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Mar 2016, 13:35

John, this is silly. Don't tell me. Tell Assange's lawyers and the experts at the UN. You are implying that they've all got it all wrong. That is your right, but please don't expect me or anybody else to keep playing this game with you. It's silly.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Mar 2016, 13:51

You say:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Quite obviously, Assange, his lawyers, the UNWGAD and everybody else apart from you, Cameron and Hammond don't believe that Sweden won't extradite him.

I have just read the UNWGAD report again to check. It does not express an opinion about whether or not Sweden would extradite him to the USA.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Mar 2016, 15:15

johnhemming2 wrote:You say:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Quite obviously, Assange, his lawyers, the UNWGAD and everybody else apart from you, Cameron and Hammond don't believe that Sweden won't extradite him.
I have just read the UNWGAD report again to check. It does not express an opinion about whether or not Sweden would extradite him to the USA.

Jesus Wept. If the UNWGAD did not think he risks extradition to the US, they would not have ruled that he is being arbitrarily detained, would they? The ruling only makes sense in the context of his fear of extradition to the US.

What is your problem?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Mar 2016, 15:31

UndercoverElephant wrote:Jesus Wept. If the UNWGAD did not think he risks extradition to the US, they would not have ruled that he is being arbitrarily detained, would they?

Read the report and tell me where it says that. They make an argument based upon events not only including living in the Embassy, but also the house arrest prior to that.

On my reading of the report they do not have the view that he would be extradited to the USA. They do not express a view on this.