Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The New Statesman must correct its error over Assange and extradition

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 5   Valuable 5   Supported 4  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 8/24/12

Become a Fan
  (112 fans)


"No provision gives any court the right to decide on an extraditions request."

The court's role in extradition requests is limited to this situation:

"The government may not extradite someone for whom the supreme court has found that an extradition would not be in conformity with the law."

As I noted on Wednesday, his analysis of the law (exactly like Professor Klamberg's) shows there are two possible outcomes once the contested extradition request goes to the Swedish court: first, the court rules the extradition request is not cognizable under relevant law, in which case the Swedish government is barred from extraditing; or second, the court rules the extradition request is cognizable under relevant law, in which case the Swedish government has the option not to extradite. As he put it:

"The deciding body is thus the government, with an input by the prosecutor general."

Swedish extradition law is written to ensure that if an extradition is to occur, Swedish government officials, not its courts, are the final decision-makers on whether that should take place.

More clear evidence of Green's error, first noted by this superb debunking of Green, comes from documents sent by the Australian diplomatic mission in Sweden to its home government on the Assange/extradition matter (they were declassified and released to the public by the Australian government). In response to questions from Canberra about what an extradition request to Sweden would entail, the Australian diplomatic mission explained:

"The process require[s] a request from another state, a decision by Sweden's supreme court on whether extradition was possible, and finally a decision by government to go forward with the extradition." [my emphasis; p61]

The internal communications in the Australian government go on to note:

"The Swedish government could deny an extradition or temporary surrender that the supreme court had approved, but if the supreme court denied an extradition or temporary surrender application, then the matter ended there; ie, the government could not approve a process that the supreme court had rejected."

Again: the Swedish courts simply decide whether extradition is legally possible, but the final decision as to whether to extradite is vested in the Swedish government.

This is not some sort of strange or exotic feature of Swedish law. As Professor Heller wrote when explaining that the Swedish government possesses exactly the final decision-making authority Green denied it has:

"Nor is that unusual; I don't know of any states that give the final decision to courts instead of to the executive."

In light of this abundant evidence, I trust that even the most hardened Assange critic will acknowledge that Green was radically wrong on this key point. It should be noted that those sources I just cited are not Assange supporters, but rather are the opposite: they are all, to varying degrees, hostile to his fight against extradition to Sweden. Professor Klamberg (along with Professor Heller) is highly skeptical that Sweden would extradite Assange to the US. The Swedish-Moroccon lawyer I cited began his analysis by declaring:

"First, let me state that I am as adamantly in favour of Julian Assange being extradited to Sweden as I am opposed to him being extradited to the USA for any WikiLeaks-related offense."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for "communicating with the enemy"

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The myth of Obama's "blunders" and "weakness"

Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government?

The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Most valuable clarification and information.... by BFalcon on Saturday, Aug 25, 2012 at 9:03:26 PM
for extradition, then they also admit to liability... by Paul Repstock on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:10:56 PM