FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Extraditing Assange

Another loss, and another round of debates.  The Assange saga now moves to its next phase after the loss in the High Court that seemingly propels him closer to Sweden.  The technicalities of the cases remain as they always have been, but they merely seem to be obfuscating the broader issues at stake.  For all the seriousness of the allegations, which do require accounting, there is still a fundamental point to be made: he has not been charged.

These claims (rape, molestation, coercion) were contained in that most unimpeachable of documents called the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).  The EAW must itself be valid, and correctly served on the person.  Once that takes place, the person being served must show that it is disproportionate, an abuse of process, or otherwise a violation of the defendant’s human rights.  If this cannot be done, the United Kingdom court must order the extradition.

Before the judges Lord Justice John Thomas and Justice Duncan Ouseley, four arguments were presented, and all systematically rejected.  The issue of a competent authority was again raised by Assange’s lawyers.  The EAW, in other words, could not be valid in that it did not emanate from an ‘independent person or body exercising judicial power and functions’.  There was a large hurdle to overcome here as the EAW had already been certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).  Besides, argued the judges, a prosecutor could be deemed in some member states a ‘judicial authority’.

Then came the dual criminality requirement, which was relevant to the charges of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.  Again, the judges were not convinced.  After all, the charge of rape was itself not one that was needed to satisfy that requirement at all.

A third ground of appeal was that Assange could not be said to have been charged at all.  As he claimed after the trial proceedings, ‘I have not been charged with any crime in any country.  Despite this, the European arrest warrant is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts of the case, as judges have made clear here today’ (CNN, Nov 2).  The reasoning of the court was that there was sufficient gravity here in the complaints to suggest that Assange was wanted for more than mere ‘questioning’, and that he was an ‘accused’ party within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003.

The final ground of appeal for Assange lay in the issue of proportion – that extradition would be a disproportionate response for someone who had only been accused of an offence.  The judges were far from impressed with this line, arguing that Assange had not been accused of ‘a trivial offence’ but ‘serious sexual offences.’

Assange is having something of a bad trot in the courts.  He has also had a run of sheer rotten luck.  His expert witness, Bjorn Hurtig, did his level best to sabotage his previous case, claiming that the prosecutor had made no effort to interview Assange on the rape charge whilst the accused was still in Sweden.  That claim was what Assange’s two other legal experts relied upon. The castle began crumbling, the extradition process suddenly seeming an awful reality.

The reality of then being extradited to the US once Assange finds himself in Sweden is very much on the cards.  Some commentators in the US have speculated that he could well be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for the dissemination of national defense information.  The Act makes it a crime to disclose information ‘relating to the national defense’ to ‘any person not entitled to receive it’ (WSJ, Dec 8, 2010).

There are other features of the judgment to consider.  For one thing, the judgment describes Assange as a journalist.  Should Assange ever find himself in the none too cosy arms of American justice, this will bring up issues of the First Amendment.  That, however, is entirely dependent on the restrictions placed on Assange’s exercise of that right.  Given the Disneyland justice demanded by such advocates as Andrew C. McCarthy, writing for the National Review (Dec 8, 2010), ‘we should presume that constitutional protections do not extend to aliens located overseas, particularly those who are hostile to our government.’  While that will be quite a way down the track, the case throws up grave issues about how the EWA operates and how it curtails a judge’s capacity to look past it.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail