Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Robb]

By David Allen Green, New Statesman's legal correspondent

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material...

(snip)

Three: "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA"

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'....

Read More: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

See also excellent analysis on "Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom" (Cliff's Notes version: nope) and "The Swedes should interview Assange in London" (also nope).

[leveymg]

1. So, is that a knock at Assange supporters in general, or a good reason why he evaded extradition?

Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Can be read either way. "Zombie facts"?

[Robb]

3. I think it's something of a Krugman-ism.

e.g., "The claim that only rich people pay taxes is a zombie lie — something that keeps coming back no matter how many times it’s killed by evidence."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/zombie-tax-lies/

[KoKo]

10. Robb...what does Krugman have to do with Julian Assange?

See...problem is...you give away your BIAS with distraction from ASSANGE to KRUGMAN..

It loses you creds when some might want to engage you further...but, will probe wondering where you are coming from when you jump from one foe to another..

Just saying...

[Robb]

11. Are you kidding? I answered a question that was asked.

Krugman coined (as far as I know) the term "zombie lie." This author uses "zombie fact" in the same way.

Also, I'm pretty certain I've been supportive of Krugman here -- I've read him for years. If you can find a post where I've been critical of him, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[KoKo]

16. You used his name in your subject line..knowing it's a Red Flag here for controversy...

Just saying.....as how I saw it.

[SidDithers]

2. DU rec...nt

Sid

[robinlynne]

4. where's unrec when you need it? article is a bunch of anti-assange garbage.

[Robb]

5. Facts have an anti-Assange bias?

[robinlynne]

6. facts? kidding?

[Robb]

7. Quite serious. Which among them do you dispute?

I'm not a lawyer, before we start.

[robinlynne]

8. Let's just start with "Ecuador is no grnaitng politicla asylum to Assange becuase they belive in fre

freedom of speech."

Really, the writer is inside the heads of the Ecuadorean diplomats? what a "fact". You know a country is doing something? really?

[Robb]

12. I assume he's talking about the Reporters Without Borders complaints vis-a-vis Ecuador.

A subject dear to my heart, freedom of the press.

But I've also been told the opposition newspapers there are full of shit, so I shouldn't be upset they're being quashed. Perhaps; I'm not certain I'd lose sleep over the loss of Faux News, for example. But I don't care for the effect it would have on speech in general.

[robinlynne]

24. my point is nonsense being called "facts". them aint facts. simple enough.

[Aerows]

15. No, but frankly, you do

And I'm sorry to see it, because you are otherwise a reasoned individual.

[KoKo]

9. Robb...good to have some different viewpoints..Watch This..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101749910

And then (after you get through whole thing) ...come back and post..

[Cleita]

22. This seems to be no longer available.

I found this on YouTube. Is it the same video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_244366&feature=iv&src_vid=8586RIuXL6s&v=6KzCV3LixsM

[KoKo]

28. This from "Information Clearing House...Just worked for me....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31976.htm

[KoKo]

30. Robb...the YouTube you linked is not available...but, THIS ONE on You Tube

is the replacement and I checked it out and it's still working now.

[Aerows]

13. Robb, I love you

but you are on the wrong side of this.

The only legal thing that Assange can do is stay where he is, because other folks are waiting to use extrajudicial methods.

I hardly regard him as a hero, and if he is guilty, he should serve his crime. The relentlessness with which governments has pursued Assange after he embarrassed them, makes anyone with a brain believe it is revenge against him telling the truth.

[Robb]

20. See, I don't think one thing precludes the other.

Sort of like pissing off the local sheriff. He ain't gonna bust you for nothin', but he'll cross state lines to serve you for jaywalking.

[Aerows]

21. What do you think that says about justice?

Honestly?

[Robb]

32. Look at DU's system for the answer.

People now can get called paid shills, idiots, or worse, and juries don't hide the posts as personal attacks because enough of them agree.

In the old days, we'd delete personal attacks. Now, if a poster has a reputation, s/he might have to endure abuse.

Justice is uneven. That doesn't mean you wholly abandon all attempts to mete it out.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

23. relentlessness by whom? n/t

[treestar]

26. What evidence is there of people "waiting to use extrajudicial methods?"

[Aerows]

27. treestar

I agree with you on many things, and I like our President Obama.

On this? I disagree. Assange can stay where he is, as far as I am concerned, because he is already serving a sentence IF he is guilty. If he isn't, shame on those trying to condemn him.

As to your question of "What evidence is there of people "waiting to use extrajudicial methods", I'm going to assume that you are smarter than that and not even bother to answer. If you TRULY want an answer to that question, I'll offer you one, but you have always struck me as having an IQ above your shoe size, so it shouldn't be necessary.

Press the question and pretend you don't know? Come on, treestar. You are more intelligent than that, as are most people that can type and post here.

[treestar]

29. How can anyone say conclusively there is anyone American, in power, who

would use extrajudicial methods? I don't see how you've even answered that. You seem to think it self evident.

Now for those who think drone attacks are a violation of due process when made in Yemen against US citizens, there might be something to discuss, but honestly, why would they bother with Julian? Why create all that ill will over nothing?

He's not going to be "disappeared." It would be noticed by his supporters. He's not going to be found dead somewhere. He's going to be in custody for a long time. I don't see any history of ourselves or Sweden that we deserve to be treated as if we are some third world country issuing a fatwa.

He's gained his point and made himself noticeable. He's not a needle in the haystack of some third world country most people know nothing about.

The leaks did not embarrass us so much. We seem to still be an existing nation with a huge military and great affect on the rest of the world. I don't think he sent up away with our tail between our legs on the world stage. Why would we bother?

But Julian OTOH has lots to gain by getting himself painted as the victim as much as possible. He's not a bright guy, or he'd be done with the Swedish thing already.

[Aerows]

31. Evidence

isn't self-evident? Does GITMO exist?

Again, treestar, you are smarter than this.

I'm starting to read your "custody" words as though you think it will be custard, creamy, delicious and easy.

We all know it is nothing like that, and pushing the "custardly" vision of extrajudicial incarceration is as silly as my use of the word custard.

You aren't dumb, treestar, and neither am I or are most readers of DU.

[Major Hogwash]

14. Now that he is in Ecuador, the point is moot.

The guy that wrote that article might also consider that possibility!!

[KoKo]

17. "Hogwash" do you have access to some Breaking News..that the rest of us don't?

Inquiring Minds want to know.

Have a link?

[leveymg]

18. I think he means the Embassy is tatamount to Ecuadoran territory.

[KoKo]

19. The impression given was that Julian had managed to Escape from Embassy...

So your nuance that you picked up is welcomed as a reply.

[treestar]

25. Informative article

kick