The Julian Assange circus: why is Carl Bildt lying?

First, let me state that I am as adamantly in favour of Julian Assange being extradited to Sweden as I am opposed to him being extradited to the USA for any Wikileaks-related offense. Being a jurist, reading the press coverage and blog & twitter comments on the Julian Assange circus has proved very demanding – the amount of bad faith, ignorance and paranoia has been staggering, mostly on the part of the Assangistas, many of whom have not refrained from smearing the two female victims in the Swedish court case at heart of the matter.

I do not propose to comment all the idiotic allegations and comments made, too daunting a task, but will here turn to comments made by the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, and also on the behaviour of the Swedish prosecution service, Åklagarmyndigheten, in relation to their refusal to issue a guarantee that Julian Assange would not be extradited to the United States on any Wikileaks-related charge. Most Assangistas point to two possible solutions to the current legal, diplomatic and political conundrum: Swedish prosecutors and policemen could agree to his offer to be interrogated in London, at the Ecuadorian embassy, or the Swedish government could issue a guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the USA.

The first solution is easy to dismiss: such an interrogation, taking place in a foreign embassy in a third country, would not be done under normal interrogation conditions. The Ecuadorian embassy, acting on instructions of a president who’s taken sides with Assange, would in effect be dictating the terms of that police interrogation. Furthermore, Julian Assange, who is a fugitive and has jumped bail on the UK court orders upholding the European Arrest Warrant, would be treated in a very favourable and discriminatory way as compared to other suspects. Finally, and more importantly, there would be no real possibility to confront him with the two victims under normal circumstances. The Swedish prosecuting service has said as much in a press communiqué:

Varför kan inte åklagaren förhöra Assange i Storbritannien?

En förklaring till åklagarens beslut att inte förhöra Assange i Storbritannien.
I ärenden där en misstänkt person befinner sig utomlands måste åklagaren överväga vilka förundersökningsåtgärder som är möjliga enligt svensk rätt och internationella instrument. Vidare måste åklagaren överväga vad som krävs i det enskilda fallet för att utredningen ska kunna genomföras på ett rättssäkert och effektivt sätt utan att kvaliteten åsidosätts. Åklagaren måste också överväga hur en eventuell rättegång ska kunna genomföras, om utredningen leder till att åklagaren väcker åtal, och hur ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas.
I detta ärende utmynnade åklagarens överväganden i att Julian Assange begärdes häktad för de brott han var misstänkt för. Med stöd av domstolens häktningsbeslut utfärdade åklagaren en europeisk arresteringsorder.
Åklagarens bedömning är att Julian Assange av utredningsskäl behöver vara tillgänglig i Sverige under förundersökningen. Det som kan nämnas, utan att gå in på utredningsarbetet i detalj, är att det finns behov av att vid förhör med Julian Assange kunna presentera och höra honom om den bevisning som kommit fram i utredningen samt att i den fortsatta utredningen vid behov kunna genomföra kompletterande förhör med Julian Assange och andra inblandade personer.
Enligt svensk lagstiftning krävs att den åtalade är personligen närvarande vid rättegången när det gäller den här typen av brott. Om förundersökningen leder fram till att bevisningen bedöms räcka för åtal mot Julian Assange krävs hans personliga närvaro i Sverige för att en rättegång ska kunna genomföras och för att ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas. Domstolens häktningsbeslut innebär att Julian Assange är häktad för att säkerställa detta.
Translation:

Why can’t the prosecutor interrogate Assange in Britain?
An explanation of the prosecutor’s decision not to interrogate Assange in Britain.

In cases where a suspect is abroad, the prosecutor must consider the preliminary actions possible under Swedish law and international instruments. Furthermore, the prosecutor must consider what is required in each case for the investigation to be conducted in a legally secure and efficient manner without sacrificing overriding quality requirements. The prosecutor must also consider how a trial could be implemented, if the investigation could lead to prosecuting the suspect, and how a possible sentence would be enforced.

In this case these considerations led the prosecutor to request that Julian Assange be put in custody for the crimes he was suspected of. Based on the Court’s decision to grant that request, the prosecutor issued an European arrest warrant.

The prosecutor believes that Julian Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation for the sake of the investigation. It is to be mentioned, without going into the investigation in detail, that there is a need, when interrogating Julian Assange, to present and hear him on the evidence that has come forward during the investigation and that there is also a need, if necessary, to carry out additional interviews with Julian Assange and other people involved under the further investigation.

Under Swedish law, the defendant is required to be personally present at the trial in the case of such a crime. If the inquiry leads to the conclusion that the evidence is considered sufficient for prosecution against Julian Assange, his personal presence in Sweden will be required for a trial to be carried out and for any sentence to be enforced. The Court’s arrest warrant means that Julian Assange has been arrested to secure this.

In fact, judicial policy reasons are probably decisive: allowing a fugitive to set conditions for his interrogation in spite of the courts of the requested country – the UK – having granted an European arrest warrant request would send a catastrophic signal, giving suspects around the EU a useful tip on how to evade justice. Once the extradition procedure has been launched, any other outcome would not only be a humiliating stepdown for the two court systems involved, but also a severe setback for the European arrest warrant, seen as a substantial step forward for a speedier judiciary co-operation within the EU. To sum up: prosecutors usually interrogate suspects on their premises, and there is no reason why Assange shouldn’t be treated as any other sex crime suspect in this respect.
The other solution proposed by the Assangistas is of another order altogether. Julian Assange is a well-known activist, and US authorities are widely known to want his extradition for trial for Wikileaks’ publication of US diplomatic cables. It should however be stressed that no such extradition request has been made by the US to the UK government, despite the very close diplomatic and security links between the two, the UK being the US’ closest intelligence partner. The Assangistas therefore suggest that Sweden could issue a guarantee that it would not extradite Assange to the US for any Wikileaks-related charge.
That suggestion is more difficult to dismiss. Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for governments to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it. This is the case under Sweden’s law (1957:668) on extradition – its articles 1, 14 and 15 establish that an extradition request must be lodged with the Swedish justice department, the decision being taken by the government after having heard the Prosecutor general and, if the person whose extradition is sought objects to his extradition, the Supreme Court. In the last case, the government may not however overrule the Supreme Court’s judgment that an extradition would breach the law. Article 12 adds that the government may put conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. The deciding body is thus the government, with an input by the Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the requested person doesn’t accept to be extradited.

Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, has however said that he is prevented from issuing such a guarantee:

Tidigare i veckan sade utrikesminister Carl Bildt till TT att skälet till att en garanti inte kan ges är enkelt:

– Rättssystemet i Sverige är oberoende. Jag kan inte göra några uttalanden som binder rättssystemet på något sätt. Då skulle jag bryta mot den svenska grundlagen.

Translation:

Earlier this week, foreign minister Carl Bildt declared to Sweden’s news agency TT that the reason why such a guarantee cannot be issued is simple:

- The Swedish court system is independent. I cannot make any declaration that bind the court system in any way. I would then be violating the Swedish constitution.

His declarations are as far as I can judge without any legal basis. As we’ve seen, Swedish extradition law clearly states that the Swedish government is the body deciding on any extradition request (with the exception of requests based on the European Arrest Warrant or the Nordic Arrest Warrant). Article 1 of that law clearly states that the government decides on extradition, and this is repeated throughout the text (articles 12, 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the law). No provision gives any court the right to decide on an extraditions request. The nearest such provision is that the government may not extradite someone for whom the Supreme Court has found that an extradition would not be in conformity with the law.

The last sentence of article 15 even says the following:

15 § Innan regeringen meddelar beslut i anledning av framställningen, skall yttrande avges av riksåklagaren. Har inte den som avses med framställningen samtyckt till att han utlämnas, skall ärendet dessutom prövas av högsta domstolen. Är det uppenbart att framställningen ej bör bifallas, skall den dock omedelbart avslås.

Translation:

Before the government takes a decision on an extradition request, an opinion is to be given by the Prosecutor general. If the person whose extradition is requested does not agree to his extradition, the case is to be transmitted to the Supreme Court. If it is manifestly evident that the extradition request should not be granted, it should however be rejected immediately.

True, no formal extradition request relating to Julian Assange has been made by the US government to the Swedish government – yet. But such a request would be ultimately decided by the Swedish government, not by the courts – unless the government would wish to overrule a Supreme Court decision that an extradition of Assange would be contrary to the extradition law (we can safely assume that Assange would object to his extradition to the US). If the Swedish government has no intention to grant such a hypothetical request, why not issue a guarantee anyway?

By doing so, the Swedish government would only make an advance, principled decision on a future, hypothetical US request for Assange’s extradition. The last sentence of article 15 of the law on extradition would allow for the government to immediately reject a request it would consider manifestly unfounded, proividing of course such a request was made. Nothing would prevent the Swedish government to make an advance statement to the effect that should any extradition request be made from a third country for Julian Assange and relating to the publication of confidential documents through Wikileaks, it would reject it. It could even cite article 6 of the law on extradition, which provides that extradition may not be sought for political crimes or for crimes of an overwhelmingly political nature.

If there is a general principle of Swedish law, or a specific provision, prohibiting an administrative body – in this case the government – from announcing in advance how it intends to decide on a specific request, I would like to know it (this is a sincere request – if better informed readers can enlighten me on this, I’d be grateful). One must furthermore note that the request in question is made by a foreign government, not by an individual. That request is of a political nature and the law on extradition does in no way prohibit the Swedish government from refusing such a request whenever it so choses. On the contrary, the law aims at safeguarding the rights of the person whose extradition is sought – for instance, no extradition is allowed of a Swedish national (article 2), or for military crimes (article 5), or for political crimes (article 6), or in the case of discrimination or persecution (article 7), or if an extradition would be inhumane (article 8) or if the person’s right to a fair trial haven’t been guaranteed (article 9). In Assange’s case, a guarantee not to extradite him to the USA would obviously be in his interest, thus being in conformity with the law’s spirit. The huge gain in working hours and litigation costs that could be saved by issuing such a guarantee to Assange’s lawyers should also be considered, not to mention the possibility for the Swedish prosecutor service to interrogate him on Swedish soil.

The real question is therefore: since there are no legal obstacles for the Swedish government to issue such  guarantee, why is it reticent to issue one? Maybe Carl Bildt has a convincing answer to that question.

34 Réponses

  1. A very interesting and thorough article. Do I have your permission to translate it into French and publish it on my blog http://wikileaksactu.wordpress.com/ ? I’m sure francophonic readers would appreciate to read it… :)
    As you haven’t placed any details on the licence you are using and despite my growing habit of using the "copyleft" principle, I believe it to be correct to ask you. It’s also a chance to work together on this subject, highly important as you know, if indecently reported in the mainstream media.

  2. [...] A Swedish Jurist has provided the following explanation as to why it is not appropriate to interview Assange overseas: The first solution is easy to dismiss: such an interrogation, taking place in a foreign embassy in a third country, would not be done under normal interrogation conditions. The Ecuadorian embassy, acting on instructions of a president who’s taken sides with Assange, would in effect be dictating the terms of that police interrogation. Furthermore, Julian Assange, who is a fugitive and has jumped bail on the UK court orders upholding the European Arrest Warrant, would be treated in a very favourable and discriminatory way as compared to other suspects. Finally, and more importantly, there would be no real possibility to confront him with the two victims under normal circumstances. The Swedish prosecuting service has said as much in a press communiqué: [...]

  3. 1. Close followers of the case know that the interview with woman 1. was done over the phone. So there are no guarantees that someone was not holding a gun to her head.
    2. As all of us know a suspect can choose to remain silent during an interrogation or not cooperate in other ways. In that case the prosecutor can still decide to press charges or not. So there is nothing that stops her from starting the prosecution now & that is what I want to see happening.
    3. Because that would prove to the world that -indeed- she has evidence and a serious case. As per now I am not convinced at all.

  4. Nice article. What is your opinion on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_courier – can’t Ecuador just make Assange a diplomatic courier?

  5. "The Swedish court system is independent. I cannot make any declaration that bind the court system in any way. I would then be violating the Swedish constitution."

    Why would Bildt cite the constitution when this seems to be a matter of extradition law?

    Perhaps he’s sidestepping the legality of "pre-denying" an extradition request by focusing us on the alleged unconstitutionality thereof. Jedi mind trick?

    Or maybe there is something in the Swedish constitution that explains Bildt’s reservations.

  6. I will help you to understand the laws in Sweden and I will explain to you why it is against the constitution to offer a guarantee against extradition.
    Before I do that please read the following articles:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/julian-assanges-lawyers-conspire-to-hide-the-truth-about-extraditions/

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/assanges-lawyers-lies-about-interpol-red-notices/

    There are a number of "guarantees" already. Nobody will be extradited from Europe if he faces death penalty or torture.

    Nobody will be extradited from Sweden if he faces political or military crimes. Espionage is a political crime.

    I have followed the Assange case since it started. I have been a defense witness in the 7-8 February 2011 extraditionary hearing. The misinformation and lying in this case is done by the Assange side. I can guarantee that if you want me to.

    Best regards,

    Göran Rudling

  7. [...] Simply Earn Cash But Expand Their BusinessesThe Conspiracy of An Israeli Planned 9/11 – DoodiePantsThe Julian Assange circus: why is Carl Bildt lying .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 [...]

  8. [...] bar blast called ‘opportunistic crime’ and not part of wider conspiracy of terrorThe Julian Assange circus: why is Carl Bildt lying .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 !important;} [...]

  9. [...] Un avvocato svedese, poco tenero con quelli che chiama “Assangistas” smentisce in punta di diritto l’affermazione del ministro svedese Carl Bild, che ha detto che il suo paese non può garantire in anticipo che -non- deporterà Assange negli [...]

  10. Pas de problème pour une traduction en francais. Laissez-moi quand même y jeter un coup d’oeil avant de la publier, merci!

  11. "The first solution is easy to dismiss: such an interrogation, taking place in a foreign embassy in a third country, would not be done under normal interrogation conditions. "

    Show me ANYTHING in this case that has been normal interrogation conditions. The fact that the girls were questioned together? There’s a list by Naomi Wolf of at least 5 points where this case has been BADLY mishandled, to the point of neglect.
    The prosecutor should resign. She is obviously unfit for her position.

  12. "Show me ANYTHING in this case that has been normal interrogation conditions. The fact that the girls were questioned together? There’s a list by Naomi Wolf of at least 5 points where this case has been BADLY mishandled, to the point of neglect."

    The two women were not interviewed together. Naomi Wolf’s article is grossly inaccurate. In fact none of her listed 8 big problems is a real problem.

  13. So – can anybody answer me this. Assange is not cooperative for an interview. So why do they still want to do/ try this. Let them charge!!

  14. [...] the government must formally opine on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes have made the case that the government’s position would be [...]

  15. [...] Klamberg is far from alone in making this clear. As I noted on Wednesday, this Swedish-Moroccon lawyer analyzed Swedish extradition law in rigorous detail to make the same point: “Swedish extradition law [...]

  16. Kjaere Goran,
    Before you say anything about Wolf, consider that you think Green is a credible source, but he is lying his ass off about the guarantee. In fact, the WHOLE point of this blogpost is that Bildt is LYING.
    So, you’ve got no leg to stand on, regarding Wolf.

    Why are rightwingers always so lazy to provide arguments?
    You accuse Wolf without proof, and you’re overwhelmed by the evidence of the contrary, which is in fact Swedish law.

    It’s not that Carl Bildt has served on the board of an oil company which was indicted for war crimes in Sudan, or that he served on the board of the military industrial complex company the RAND corporation, it’s that Bildt is LYING his ass off.

  17. Dear Steel General,

    The blogpost does not in any way show that Carl Bildt is lying. It just shows that some people are having a difficult time understanding written Swedish.

    The extradition law is clear and easy to understand for most people. The Supreme Court makes a decision in an extradition case. The Swedish government can stop an extradition that the Supreme Court has granted.

    As we all know Julian is not in Sweden. The US haven’t even asked to have him extradited. Anybody understands that the Swedish Supreme Court is not yet involved. It means that the Swedish government cannot do anything.

    You tend to believe that because the government can stop an extradition that is granted by the Supreme Court it means that the Government can stop an extradition that is not even handled by the Supreme Court. An extradition that is not even asked for.

    It is self evident that the government cannot issue any guarantees. A guarantee that Julian would not be extradited would mean that the government is effectively short circuiting the legal system, taking out the Supreme Court.

    Think of this example for a while. The President of the United States can pardon an individual. One can say it means that the President of the United States controls who is to serve time in jail. Just because the President can pardon individuals does it mean that the President can issue guarantees to individuals that they will not have to go to jail?

    David Allen Green is not lying about the guarantee. Nor is Carl Bildt. You just don’t understand it. That’s all.

  18. [...] the government must formally opine on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes have made the case that the government’s position would be [...]

  19. From Sven-Erik Alhem’s expert testimony to British court:

    "…because they appear to have interviewed both complainants together and allowed contamination of their evidence."

  20. Dear Steel General,

    It seems like you are keeping track of people that according to you are lying about Sweden’s capacity to offer guarantees in extradition cases. Here is another one for you.

    Karin Höglund, Deputy Chief of Mission at the Swedish Embassy in Washington, on 24 August just said:
    "Sweden has an independent judiciary and, if the issue were to arise, any request for extradition would be handled in accordance with Swedish laws. Swedish legislation does not foresee the possibility of issuing guarantees that extradition will not take place."
    http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15777/a/197740

    Since Karin Höglund’s statement is posted on the Swedish Cabinet’s web pages it appears that the whole cabinet is lying. Please make a note. If you would ask around you will probably find that most legal scholars are lying too.

    It is of course impossible that you and your friend Glenn Greenwald are as ill informed as your opions are strong.

    I’ve just recently read Naomi Wolf’s article about 8 big problems regarding the Assange case. I know that nothing in her article is correct. I am working on an article about it. Before I publish it I would like to have your opinion about the Naomi Wolf article. I would appreciate if you can reveal what facts you base your opinion on.

  21. [...] this issue and found another Swedish lawyer Göran Rudling who agrees with Klamberg and Bring. In a comment thread on this blog, he states clearly: It is self evident that the government cannot issue any guarantees. A guarantee that Julian would [...]

  22. [...] the government must formally opine on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes have made the case that the government’s position would be [...]

  23. Göran: Du verkar vara den som har svårigheter med svenska i skrift – läs om lagen om utlämning, som uttryckligen säger att regeringen beslutar om utlämning, i vissa fall efter HD:s hörande.

  24. Snälla snälla du, skärp dig.

    Vi vet att regeringen har "veto-rätt" när det gäller utlämningar. Men det betyder inte att regeringen har rätt att i förväg utfärda garantier. Och det var garantier det var fråga om.

    Så till en fråga till dig som uppenbarligen kan läsa svenska. USA’s president kan "pardon" någon som är dömd. I Glenn Greenwalds bisarra värld betyder det att Presidenten är den som avgör vem som ska sitta i fängelse. Allt enligt så kallad Greenwald logic.

    Betyder det att USA’s President kan utfärda garantier till en person som innebär att individen inte kommer att ställas inför domstol och inte kommer att hamna i fängelse? Att Presidenten kan utfärda något som liknar ett "get out of jail" card från Monopol.

    Om du kan svara på denna fråga så kan du också svara på frågan om garantier-

    Ursäkta. Glenn Greenwald är en förbannad pappskalle. Han kanske kan cykelreglerna perfekt men han har inte en jävla aning om vad han snackar om när det gäller att utfärda garantier. Ursäkta språket men jag är innerligen trött på bisarra kommentarer.

  25. Le Août 26, 2012 à 7:29
    "From Sven-Erik Alhem’s expert testimony to British court:

    “…because they appear to have interviewed both complainants together and allowed contamination of their evidence.”"

    If it was true that the two complainants were interviewed together I agree with you that it would be a problem.

    There is NOT ONE THING from the police investigations that support Sven-Erik Alhem’s claim. I know, I was a witness in the same hearing, 7-8 February 2011.

    Sven-Erik Alhem’s claim is not supported by facts. Sven-Erik Alhem’s claim is based on incorrect information that was fed to hem by Julian Assange’s English defence lawyers. Please see doc below.

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/

    If you have any questions regarding this please ask me. It is nothing more than disinformation by the defence.

  26. I cannot see how there was no contamination of evidence: the women went together to the police (who was a friend to Miss A). After the interview of Miss W. someone either contacted the Expressen newspaper or told the story to someone who contacted the Expressen.
    The most likely ‘someone’ for either action is Miss A. This means that she heard what the police had decided to do with the testimony of Miss W. Either by being present at the hearing or (even more breach of procedure) by discussing it with her police-friend afterwards.

  27. Eftersom du uppenbarligen kan läsa svenska kan du – kanske – greppa skillnaden mellan vetorätt och beslutanderätt – och inom den svenska utlämningslagstiftningen har regeringen beslutanderätt och HD vetorätt. Men de ansvariga för Regeringskansliets hemsida kanske också har problem med läskunnigheten enligt dig: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15988 .

    Nog om detta.

  28. Tror nog att vi ska titta på detta en gång till. Mest för att det handlar om en garanti och inte om utlämningshanteringen i sig.Tack för länken förresten.
    Utlämningsärendet lämnas till domstol, Högsta Domstolen bestämmer. Om Högsta Domstolen är emot utlämning blir det ingen utlämning.

    Om högsta domstolen skulle godkänna en utlämning kan regeringen stoppa den. Om nu regeringen bara kan godkänna en utlämning under förutsättning att Högsta Domstolen godkänt den ser det inte ut för mig som om Regeringen har beslutanderätt. Regeringen och Högsta Domstolen har vetorätt, men Regeringen har den sist. Å då kanske det är beslutanderätt. Det är lite komplicerat. Och du kanske har rätt. Men detta är inte centralt när det gäller utfärdande av garanti.

    Jag har aldrig hört talas om att någon individ begärt att en garanti ska lämnas. För mig är det självklart att det kan utfärdas garantier till att utlämna till vissa länder. Men jag har svårt att tro att man skulle kunna utfärda garantier att inga ska utlämnas till USA.

    Det viktiga är om regeringen kan utfärda en garanti. Oberoende om vem som har beslutanderätten kan jag inte se att det kan utfärdas nån garanti. Det är ju det som frågan gäller. Vad är din uppfattning om detta?

  29. On numerous occasions we have heard Julian Assange say that he is not charged with any crime. But is it really true? Is Carl Bildt lying? Is Julian Assange lying? Or do they just don’t know? Or is it just lost in translation?

    Tomorrow at 08:00 London time you may find out a new twist in the never ending story?

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it

  30. emirjame

    I agree with you that there must be some contamination of evidence. I am sorry for being to categorical in my comment. What I wanted to say is that there is no evidence that the two women were interviewed together. All evidence indicates that they were interviewed separately. I do think that Miss A influenced Miss S. If the two women hadn’t talked to each other I don’t think that there would have been a police report.

    I also agree that the most likely "someone" is Miss A. She would benefit from the story reaching the press. But I think it is important not to point fingers before we know where to point. "Someone" could be the police, a friend of Miss A or someone that managed to overhear a conversation.

  31. I wonder why you say the two women are "victims". They both insisted in that it was consensual action (especially as they were hunting Mr. A, not the other way round – you can read it up, especially Miss W gives a detailed report how dearly she wanted to mate with Mr. A, and how much effort she put into that). The charge is on "sex by surprise", as a consequence of hearing Miss W, and she refused to continue investigations after the police-friend of Miss A said there would be an arrest (back then the arrest would have been on rape, but that charge was dropped very quickly, and the police-friend of Miss A was removed from the case immediately).

    In Sweden, it apparently isn’t enough to have consensual sex, you also need a degree in law to understand that you have been raped. This is by itself enough of a joke to dismiss this completely.

    As to whether the Carl Bildt could give a guarantee to not extract Assange to the US: There is no problem at all. This is an "if matter arises" promise. It seems to be that Swedish people have general problems with logic, which means that they really can’t have consensual sex without consulting a lawyer ;-).

    A lot of anger from the "Assangistas" comes from the fact that the press reiterates the rape charge that has been dropped long ago. Smear is not journalism, accusing rape where there wasn’t any is clearly smear. Girls hunting a man to get him into their beds, then becoming jealous (because other girls also had success), going to the police and probably leaking material to the press aren’t nice innocent girls.

    And, finally: Anybody accused of a crime has the right to remain silent. Any statement saying that interrogation conditions wouldn’t be as they should imply some sort of torture-chamber thoughts. This is a view nobody sane should even remotely support. The right to remain silent is an absolute right, it prevents the use of torture and similar means, and any person with an education in law must fully understand that.

    One more thing: It is generally possible to interrogate fugitives wherever you can find them, anything else is a red herring. Karl-Heinz Schreiber, who was involved in a major corruption scandal in Germany, fled to Kannada, and was interrogated several times there before he finally was extradited.

  32. [...] woord zou hebben over de garantie om een verdachte niet uit te wijzen naar een derde land is herhaaldelijk weerlegd. Toch verwijst Zeinab Badawi naar de Zweedse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Carl Bildt die [...]

  33. [...] aan Assange de garantie zal geven dat-ie niet uitgeleverd wordt aan de VS als-ie naar Zweden komt. Aangetoond is dat de regering daarover het laatste woord heeft. Nog onlangs publiceerde ze samen met de Amerikaanse minister van Justitie Eric Holder een stuk [...]

  34. You lost me when you referred to supporters of Julian Asaange as ""Assangistas"" what ever that means. Why not simply say supporters? Then you claim the prosecution cannot interview in the Ecuadorian Embassy. What was stopping the prosecution interviewing Julian Assange in a Police Station in the UK. during the 18 months while he was under arrest fighting the extridition to Sweden. You then refer to Swedens laws on extradition,,,,,,,Two Swedish nationsl have just recently been extradited without Sweden making any protest on their behalf…If I was Julian Assange, I would feel safe with a guarantee from Sweden anyway…Just my opinion of course.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

Suivre

Recevez les nouvelles publications par mail.

Rejoignez 107 autres abonnés

%d bloggers like this: