I find the points and counterpoints on the Assange issue rather confusing and it's hard for me, as an observer, to separate fact from fiction. I'm wondering if someone can clear up some points:
1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?
2. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here. In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is correct)?
3. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or is it merely assumed?
4. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts. How true is this?
5. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US. How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to extradition;
6. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?
7. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?
8. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!
Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.
4Corners is an excellent in-depth news program, along the lines of Frontline in the US. You can watch the video or simply read a transcript of the entire program.
It seems fairly clear that the Swedish authorities have behaved very strangely: 1) the "victims" don't think they were raped, they wanted Assange to submit to an STD test, 2) the first prosecutor didn't think there was a criminal case, 3) the Swedes used an "Interpol Red Notice" -- normally reserved for imminent terrorist threads -- on Julian Assange (apparently neither Gaddafi, when he was on the run, nor the current president of Syria have warranted such a notice).
As regards your last question -- political asylum is generally unusual to begin with, and the number of parties involved is hardly unusual. A "typical" asylum case from the cold war would usually involve a citizen of an Eastern Bloc country seeking protection in an embassy (usually the US or a country friendly to the US) in another country. So that's three or four jurisdictions involved off that bat.
During WWII you'd have a fairly typical case of an allied airman fleeing from occupied France (two jurisdictions to begin with) into Spain, and getting to an allied embassy.
Again -- per the 4Corners report, the Australian government has not so much been "silent" as has been "all in" with the US government.
> Is there any substantive difference in extradition
> proceedings from the UK or Sweden?
The UK will not extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty. Sweden will. Assange's lawyers argue that the US's apparent desire for a Swedish extradition indicates that US prosecutors want a conviction that will lead to his execution.
This is the text if the actual Swedish extradition law from the government web site. It clearly states on Page 3, section 12, point 3 that someone can not be extradited if they are to face the death penalty. The Swedes would have to get assurances from the US that this wasn't the case to extradite him.
Sweden has been breaking international law for some time now, at the USA's behest. As the UN panel noted there is no reason to think Sweden might uphold their own diplomatic assurances as they have been caught violating them repeatedly.
What can the US charge him for that is punishable by death? The most I think they can get is conspiracy to commit espionage, which is not, according to the below list, a capital offense.
Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by inprisonment [...]
You're hiding highly relevant text behind that "[...]".
"...for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."
tl;dr - the death penalty is only applicable if you expose our spies and they are killed, or if you communicate certain kinds of information. (Those listed are usually classified "Top Secret", which to my knowledge, nothing published by Wikileaks has been.)
You are right, no "top secret" documents were published.
Still there were some claims that some names were exposed in the documents. I can imagine that somebody from all the exposed names got killed in one way or another. Would that be enough then? If something like that existed, Manning is then the first to be sentenced to death.
People have tried, vigorous tried, to find a single case where a exposed name got killed in relation to the documents. So far, not a single researcher has found one. What they have found is that there is very few names like that, the most of the named people was dead before the documents was published.
I may be operating under a misconception, but can't you only be charged with treason if you are a citizen of that country? Otherwise surely he should be a prisoner of war, or if not covered by that convention an unarmed combatant.
This is espionage, not treason. Both are capital offenses, though it's not clear that it's actually legal to execute someone for these crimes in the US due to Kennedy v. Louisiana. (That ruling specifically refuses to comment on crimes against the state, but I'm sure the next person that gets a death sentence for one of these crimes will be quick to ask the court for a review.)
The UK does not, but Sweden has violated said treaties. Here is an article on the subject, where several men were extradited from Sweden at the USA's behest, to Egypt where they were tortured: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...
As the UN panel notes this is in violation of the very treaty you cite. This is precisely the fear and it is clear the fear is reasonable and well founded in fact. The UN findings are unequivocal.
It would have to violate both Swedish law (which expressly forbids extradition if the person is to face the death penalty) and European law.
If they're willing to go that far I really don't know why they don't just let him go to Equador and have him assassinated there, it would be a whole load easier.
Those people were not extradited. If you want to talk about illegal renderings then the UK is much more complicit in those than Sweden and it makes no sense that he would be safer in the UK than in Sweden.
I think 1 is incorrect. There are two types of interviews in Sweden. Normal police interviews and 24:8 interviews. The purpose of a 24:8 interview is to determine if it is necessary to arrest the suspect, and has nothing to do with if the suspect will be charged or not. (Though he must be charged soon after being arrested or let free.) So they do only need to have a normal police interview with Assange at this stage. The 24:8 interview should be held once Assange has arrived in Sweden.
Basically the process should be:
1) International arrest warrant
2) Police interview in London
3) Charges are laid
4) Extradition to Sweden
5) 24:8 interview to check if Assange is likely to leave the country.
6) Trial
People with more knowledgeable of the law are welcome to correct me
If Sweden is capable of doing this (renditioning people for the US to torture) I'm pretty sure it's not going to have too much of a problem handing over Assange!
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...
Now (because of their blind obeisance to the US) three countries ... the UK, Sweden and Australia have all made themselves look like pathetic US lap-dogs, in the eyes of any reasonably-minded person in the world.
I find it very interesting that I haven't seen anyone refute one amazingly central point in this entire affair: #1. A second interview essentially is a lead-up to being formally charged. If this is true, Assange was one step away from being charged before fleeing the country. I think that context, if true, is important.
For number 3. I don't believe that the US government has indicted, charged, or has otherwise show interest in Julian Assange. The best information I can find on the topic are quotes [1][2] from the US Ambassador to Australia saying that the US is not interested in Julian Assange. The articles also quote the Ambassador as saying that the US-UK extradition treaty would be more convenient than the US-SE one.
"1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?"
According to the English courts, he has already been the equivalent of "charged": ""there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html)
For 5., the actual statement I could find reported was that Sweden will honour its treaties, and in particular if the US fulfills all conditions in the US-Sweden extradition treaty, Sweden is obliged, under treaty, to comply.
And it is extremely problematic in many ways for anyone (Judge or Politician) to promise at this stage what will happen when the Swedish judicial system deals with a hypothetical extradition request.
I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied.
EU (& other countries bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) are not allowed to extradite people to countries where they might face a breech of the ECHR, ergo you cannot extradite unless there is a guarantee of no capital punishment.
1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?
2. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here. In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is correct)?
3. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or is it merely assumed?
4. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts. How true is this?
5. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US. How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to extradition;
6. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?
7. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?
8. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!
Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.