Assange extradition fears are real.

[Matilda]

But Sweden’s track record in recent years in cases where extradition or forcible return to another country would result in human rights abuse is not one that would give Mr Assange any comfort.

In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights intervened to overturn a Swedish decision to deport two Syrian men, brothers, who were wanted in Syria over alleged ‘honour killings’. The Swedish authorities, having received information that the death penalty was unlikely to be imposed on the brothers, ordered that they been returned to Syria. The European Court upheld the brother’s argument that they feared persecution on return to Syria and noted that the Swedish government had been prepared to act on incomplete information and vague assurances from the Syrian embassy.

Four years earlier in December 2001, the Swedish authorities, again acting after obtaining assurances from Egypt that two asylum seekers would not be subjected to torture and would receive a fair trial, handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, to the Americans who transferred the men to Cairo.

There is also the political overlay in the Assange case which taints the extradition process. As we saw in this country in relation to David Hicks and Mammoth Habib it did not matter what domestic or international law conventions and rules should have been applied to their cases, the overriding consideration by the Howard government was to cooperate with the Bush White House.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44710.html


I also read the comments of readers below, and two pointed out that the lawyer who is representing the two Swedish women in the rape case, Thomas Borgstrom, was involved in the rendition process while he was Swedish Minister for Justice early in this century.

This is looking more and more like a fitup.

[midnight]

1. K&R for Julian Assange.....

[Demeter]

2. Governments are slow learners

If they think making an example of Assange, and violating every law on the books to do so, will deter the hackers, they are misinformed as well as criminal.

The way things are in the world among the Real People, this could be the spark to set off the whole shooting match.

[snot]

3. Pls use the term, "hackers," advisedly.

I see actual hackers as more of a straw man than an actual player in the current struggle.

More impt. players: leakers, publishers, protestors (including those Anons who have participated in DDoS attacks, which ARE NOT HACKING).

As far as I know, very little actual hacking's gone on; one main exception would be the hacking that US gov't agents are believed to have attempted in their efforts to shut down Wikileaks and their supporters.

I know you've got the best of intentions and point this out just 'cuz there's a lot of confusion and even disinfo out there, which I worry is substantively unhelpful.

[struggle4progress]

4. Why, if the US intended to prefer charges (which it has not) and ask for extradition,

would the US rather extradite from Sweden than from the UK?

The claim that, the Swedish extradition is part of a scheme to extradite to the US, doesn't seem to make any obvious sense

[Matilda]

5. It seems that they believe that extradition would be easier from Sweden,

given their past record.

But I have say, the UK's record in this regard isn't too hot either. Tony Blair did sign an agreement with Bush which allows anybody to be extradited on little more than a request from the White House if they are charged with terrorism. But that's exactly what the U.S. would like to pin on Assange if they could.

I suspect that if terrorism charges could be made to stick, the Swedish case would disappear quite suddenly. Much will depend on whether they can break Bradley Manning

[struggle4progress]

6. Facts about extradition and surrender (from Swedish Prosecution Authority website)

Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations .... if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA ... http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/


So the claim that, the US engineered the sex allegations as a step to extradite Assange, makes absolutely no sense. Once Assange has been extradited to Sweden, extradition to the US would require consent from both Sweden and the UK -- that doesn't make extradition easier: it obviously makes everyone jump more procedural hoops. It would make more sense to suspect that Assange began to worry he might have violated US law, so he and his supporters engineered the sex-allegations scheme and the trip to the UK, to put barriers in the way of an extradition that has not been requested

[Matilda]

7. I don't know all the legal arguments,

but Geoffrey Robertson, his barrister, is no fool, and he thinks it would be easier for him to be extradited from Sweden.

There is considerable disquiet in Britain about the European Arrest Warrant, and the way it can be abused. Here are links to just a few cases:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/01/stephen-hoffman-the-sinister-world-of-the-european-arrest-warrant.html

http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/11/24/7732

http://euobserver.com/9/30527


I really can't believe that the sex allegations case has been engineered by Assange; that would be running a huge risk, and I find it just a bit too fanciful. I do believe there is something very suspect going on, and it originates with the Swedish prosecutors. That's not to say that Assange is some kind of saint or hero, but I do think he's being fitted up.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Apparently, the TRUTH will not always 'set you free'. nt