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

Weekend Edition
June 22, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Karl Grossman
Star Wars Redux: Trump’s Space Force
Andrew Levine
Strange Bedfellows
Jeffrey St. Clair
Intolerable Opinions in an Intolerant Time
Paul Street
None of Us are Free, One of Us is Chained
Edward Curtin
Slow Suicide and the Abandonment of the World
Celina Stien-della Croce
The ‘Soft Coup’ and the Attack on the Brazilian People 
James Bovard
Pro-War Media Deserve Slamming, Not Sainthood
Louisa Willcox
My Friend Margot Kidder: Sharing a Love of Dogs, the Wild, and Speaking Truth to Power
David Rosen
Trump’s War on Sex
Mir Alikhan
Trump, North Korea, and the Death of IR Theory
Christopher Jones
Neoliberalism, Pipelines, and Canadian Political Economy
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Why is Tariq Ramadan Imprisoned?
Robert Fantina
MAGA, Trump Style
Linn Washington Jr.
Justice System Abuses Mothers with No Apologies
Martha Rosenberg
Questions About a Popular Antibiotic Class
Ida Audeh
A Watershed Moment in Palestinian History: Interview with Jamal Juma’
Edward Hunt
The Afghan War is Killing More People Than Ever
Geoff Dutton
Electrocuting Oral Tradition
Don Fitz
When Cuban Polyclinics Were Born
Ramzy Baroud
End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis
Ralph Nader
The Unsurpassed Power trip by an Insuperable Control Freak
Lara Merling
The Pain of Puerto Ricans is a Profit Source for Creditors
James Jordan
Struggle and Defiance at Colombia’s Feast of Pestilence
Tamara Pearson
Indifference to a Hellish World
Kathy Kelly
Hungering for Nuclear Disarmament
Jessicah Pierre
Celebrating the End of Slavery, With One Big Asterisk
Rohullah Naderi
The Ever-Shrinking Space for Hazara Ethnic Group
Binoy Kampmark
Leaving the UN Human Rights Council
Nomi Prins 
How Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to a Great Depression
Robert Fisk
Can Former Lebanese MP Mustafa Alloush Turn Even the Coldest of Middle Eastern Sceptics into an Optimist?
Franklin Lamb
Could “Tough Love” Salvage Lebanon?
George Ochenski
Why Wild Horse Island is Still Wild
Ann Garrison
Nikki Haley: Damn the UNHRC and the Rest of You Too
Jonah Raskin
What’s Hippie Food? A Culinary Quest for the Real Deal
Raouf Halaby
Give It Up, Ya Mahmoud
Brian Wakamo
We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture
Patrick Higgins
Children in Cages Create Glimmers of the Moral Reserve
Patrick Bobilin
What Does Optimism Look Like Now?
Don Qaswa
A Reduction of Economic Warfare and Bombing Might Help 
Robin Carver
Why We Still Need Pride Parades
Jill Richardson
Immigrant Kids are Suffering From Trauma That Will Last for Years
Thomas Mountain
USA’s “Soft” Coup in Ethiopia?
Jim Hightower
Big Oil’s Man in Foreign Policy
Louis Proyect
Civilization and Its Absence
David Yearsley
Midsummer Music Even the Nazis Couldn’t Stamp Out
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail