Assange - foreign office threaten to arrest him

[Empusa]

Article here

They are talking about revoking the Ecuadorian embassy's diplomatic immunity in order to enter the embassy.

Wonder if they will actually do so?

Thanks, Kladdkaka, that's the most informative thing I've read on the case in Sweden.

Kald Would it be ok if I copied your post to explain to some fuckwits people on Twitter?

Course you can.

thanks for that clarification kladdkaka. I have read a lot of conflicting information, and that has made it clear.

good point re inquisitorial system etc

The second part of my post was to Novack.

Oh phew! I was going boss-eyed trying to work that one out!

Great post Klad.

Thank you Klad, that is really clear.

But what is not clear is how Helena Kennedy sleeps at night.

Just to clarify - does this now mean that Assange has effectively imprisoned himself voluntarily in the Ecuador Embassy? I assume that his refugee status in Ecuador means very little if he steps outside the embassy? Or are there treaties which oblige the UK to grant him safe passage?

I saw it the second I hit post, Eldridge, from agreement to inexplicably bolshie, no wonder you were boss-eyed

Just to clarify (was away checking the dates), Assange's lawyer was informed on 22nd September that this second interview would take place on 28th September. Assange chose to leave Sweden on the 27th September. This is the equivalent of skipping bail. Turning up for this interview is not optional. You fail to turn up, you get a warrant issued for you arrest.

Assange's lawyers argue that he offered up other dates which were more convenient for him but that nasty man-hater prosecutor refused to accept them. They make out that she was being unreasonable, but was she? Well imagine you are arrest in the UK and released on bail. You are told you have to present yourself on Monday at the police station. You tell the police that this is inconvenient as you're going away but you'll come in in a couple of weeks instead. Would that be accepted? You'd have a warrant issued for your arrest in a nano-second. That's the sort of equivalent we're talking about here.

If Sweden is guilty of anything it's being too naive. In Sweden people are trusted to turn up for these 'interviews' and naively assumed he would too. To put it into perspective, here in Sweden if you get a jail sentence you get put on a waiting list until a space becomes available. They then send you letter telling you when to turn up. They are such a trusting, compliant people that the system is such that scumbags who want to evade justice have it easy.

alexpolismum No, he has no right of safe passage. As soon as he steps foot outside the embassy, he's nicked.

I just don't get Julian Assange. Is he publicity seeking? Ammoral? Mad?

So many people seem to think he's a champion of freedom and democracy. I don't see what's so demoncractic about publishing details of Iraqi translators who then 'disappear'.

I also don't particularly like the flexible standards of someone who claims that diplomatic communiques shouldn't be sacrosanct but that diplomatic immunity in an embassy should be. Surely you're either opposed to both, or neither?

nice point cinnabar re the sanctity or otherwise of diplomatic communiques.

As for all those sad celebs who are lining up to endorse him (Jemima Khan )...it's the same bunch who couldn't find enough good things to say about Roman Polanski. Ugh.

He seems to believe that all diplomatic bags should be open for examination - except the one in which he's hidden, trying to smuggle himself out of the country.

As for the extradition nonsense. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, Sweden doesn't. If that was his genuine fear he would be better off in Sweden. Plus the terms of the EAW mean that Sweden cannot extradict him to the US without prior agreement from the UK.

I didn't know that. If that's the case then it changes my opinion and he should get his ass to Sweden.

I didn't know that. If that's the case then it changes my opinion and he should get his ass to Sweden.

Tis true. Article 28 section 4 of the Council Framework Decision (ie EAW law) states:

'a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.'

OK - i know it is a bit to trust/rely on wikipedia but they list a US/Swedish extradition treaty which entered into force in 1984. I know I remember a case of 2 men Egyptians (I believe) being extradited from Sweden to the US (I am going to try to find details). Can anyone/Kladkaka clarify then the point that there is not extradition treaty - has it been withdrawn?

Also if it is not possible for Swedish police to question Assange in the UK in the current situation how is the Guardian reporting the following: "Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK."

I'm not sure I entirely trust what anyone is telling me about this case

Next question - given that the US are still putting their case together against Assange is it not the position that the Swedish/European arrest warrant which has already been issued has to take priority over any US extradition request? So the Swedish request must be fulfilled before any US extradition request can be considered? This is usually a provision in extradition treaties I understand?

Also - I can't find any suggestion anywhere other than on here that Helena Kennedy is representing Assange. Does she even still practice now she is in the HoL?

Klad, what that article 28 section 4 says to me is that Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US without the permission of the UK. That is different from not having an extradition treaty.

We all know that the UK is a proxy state of the USA and we would never ever say no to anything they want us to do. We only ever ask how high to jump.

You're sort of correct Sarah, I was a bit simplistic in my big post (didn't want to crash the internet). There is an extradition treaty between the US and Sweden which came into force in 1961 (amended in 1984) but it only covers very specific offences such as murder, drug trafficing, slavery etc. (full text of treaty in English) There is no treaty in respect of military or political offences. Swedish law does not permit extradition outside of the EU for military or political crimes (Swedish Ministry of Justice info on extraditions) .

Sorry niceguy2, I thought that's what you were asking about.

This thread feels like one of my uni assignments :o

Thanks Kladdkaka - I'll settle down with the treaty and a cuppa! :-) I think that is the problem. International human rights law etc is sooo complex the full details are never going to drill down even to most journos let alone those of us just trying to read and understand the situation.