Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't know what the fuck to believe anymore about the Assange case. [View all]AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)125. Here's an update to my response above...
Glenn Greenwald has been in a debate with a Dr. Klamberg over this very issue, and Greenwald also has the backing of a Prof. Heller (Klamberg and Heller both being legal experts in Sweden).
Klamberg's latest blog post is here:
http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html
In my previous post I described how the Swedish extradition procedure works and its sequence. I explained that prior to the evaluation and decision of the Government the law provides that 1) the Prosecutor-General shall deliver a statement of opinion on the matter and 2) the Supreme Court shall rule on the matter. I wrote that the Government is the final body to approve an extradition request and it may deny a request even if it has been approved by the Supreme Court, but I did not go into the question of the discretion of the Government when there is an extradition agreement. Glenn Greenwald cited parts of my post on the Guardian website on this matter.
The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.
The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.
My problem with Klamberg's argument is that he is approaching this from a purely legal, and not a diplomatic, point of view. What if Sweden were to give Ecuador non-legally binding, yet very public, assurances that it will follow the letter of its own law and, in the case of an extradition request for military or political reasons it will refuse extradition to the US?
Klamberg goes on to postulate:
Or is Greenwald arguing that the Swedish Supreme Court should give an advisory opinion in advance of a non-existing request? There is no legal basis for such advisory opinions. The reversed sequence of processing a (non-existing) extradition request that Assange, Ecuador and Greenwald is asking for would be in conflict with the Extradition Act and possibly even with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Swedish constitution. My reasoning is similar to professor Ove Bring who has been interviewed by Dagens Nyheter.
Again, there should be no reason that the government could not provide assurances to Ecuador ahead of time, but still go through the required legal process of evaluating the extradition request through the courts, when it occurs. Why not?
Klamberg goes on to say this about international law:
To summarize, if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court. Without an actual request it is difficult to legally asses the exact discretion and whether the Government can exercise such discretion.
But in this section of his blog post, he seems to be completely ignoring the fact that if there is an extradition request for prosecution in an espionage (or even military) case then it would indeed be in conflict with Swedish law and both the courts and the government, in its discretion, should have a sound reason to refuse it. What am I missing here?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
145 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't know what the fuck to believe anymore about the Assange case. [View all]
Odin2005
Aug 2012
OP
The Swedish criminal process is not the same as the process in the UK
struggle4progress
Aug 2012
#43
The Swedish investigation into the Assange matter has reached the point at which the authorities
struggle4progress
Aug 2012
#105
The worse thing that could happen to the Assange apologists at this point
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2012
#134
"... It's embarrassing to say so, given that even a single man, as I was, is liable
struggle4progress
Aug 2012
#110
What part of 'support whistle blowing and Wikileaks' do you choose to not read?
randome
Aug 2012
#55
Good grief. Blowing the whistle involves breaking some rules, violating some
rhett o rick
Aug 2012
#86
Do you know of evidence that Assange "talked" Manning into providing the documents?
JDPriestly
Aug 2012
#97
Wow, just wow! Not only do you use unsubstantiated accusation about Assange's involvement
idwiyo
Aug 2012
#98
Assange in February 2011 said the BoA stuff just wasn't interesting:
struggle4progress
Aug 2012
#111
UK protected Pinochet from extradition. Assange not charged w/any crime
WillYourVoteBCounted
Aug 2012
#12
WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us
WillYourVoteBCounted
Aug 2012
#13
I appologize. My statement wasnt polite. I have periods of frustration. nm
rhett o rick
Aug 2012
#44
And some would argue that conservatives shouldnt be allowed on progressive boards
rhett o rick
Aug 2012
#54
My favorite part of this: Wikileaks unearthed that the Tunisians were 1st in arab world to oust
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2012
#32
i agree, i haven't waded off into the assange business here until today
arely staircase
Aug 2012
#19
no wikileaks released what they thought were steve job's medical records
arely staircase
Aug 2012
#34
I believe it is misogynistic to assume that women, unlike men, can never be wrong.
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#63
This is not the reason for the doubts about these women's testimony. The doubts arise from
sabrina 1
Aug 2012
#81
I think a good starting point for a rape victim is them saying "i was raped"
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2012
#66
they can't make such a promise since it would go against international law
Bodhi BloodWave
Aug 2012
#103
International law is guided by the specific treaty between the US and Sweden...
AntiFascist
Aug 2012
#108
why request a promise for something that goes against the treaty by its own words?
Bodhi BloodWave
Aug 2012
#115
I'm sure everyone accused of a crime would like a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card for any other crimes.
randome
Aug 2012
#85
And Bush and Cheney enjoy their retirement although they started the War in Iraq on a pretext
JDPriestly
Aug 2012
#101
"right after he threatened to publish some stuff that would make the Banksters look bad"
NCTraveler
Aug 2012
#120
The actions of the governments involved make no sense in historical context
TheKentuckian
Aug 2012
#132