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
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael Duggin
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Frank Clemente
The GOP Tax Bill is Creating Jobs…But Not in the United States
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
Mel Gurtov
Weaponizing Humanitarian Aid
Thomas Knapp
Lame Duck Shutdown Theater Time: Pride Goeth Before a Wall?
George Wuerthner
The Thrill Bike Threat to the Elkhorn Mountains
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Selfhood and Her Ability to Act in the Public Domain: Resilience of Nadia Murad
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
On the Killing of an Ash Tree
Graham Peebles
Britain’s Homeless Crisis
Louis Proyect
America: a Breeding Ground for Maladjustment
Steve Carlson
A Hell of a Time
Dan Corjescu
America and The Last Ship
Jeffrey St. Clair
Booked Up: the 25 Best Books of 2018
December 13, 2018
John Davis
What World Do We Seek?
Subhankar Banerjee
Biological Annihilation: a Planet in Loss Mode
Lawrence Davidson
What the Attack on Marc Lamont Hill Tells Us
James McEnteer
Breathless
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail