‘Assange won’t come’: Swedish MPs urge end to whistleblower case

[struggle4progress]

40. I merely urged you to review the actual court documents in the Assange extradition case, before

summarizing the facts of that case. It remains clear you have not done so, since you continue to misrepresent the issues brought before the UK courts

The extradition case concerned whether the UK should extradite Assange to Sweden to face prosecution for rape. That, naturally, did not involve any effort by the UK courts to determine whether the sexual allegations were true: the courts merely addressed the question whether Assange should be extradited to face judicial process in Sweden. Nor have I ever taken any position whatsoever on the merits of the sexual allegations about Assange

In the course of the extradition case, Assange and his lawyers chose not to argue forward-extradition in the UK courts. They similarly chose not to argue that political considerations, international pressure, or other improper motives lay behind the Swedish arrest warrants. That was their choice, and the obvious conclusion will be that they made such choice because no real evidence supports the view that forward-extradition is possible or the view that improper motives lie behind the Swedish arrest warrants

In particular, Assange and his lawyers chose not to argue in the UK courts that Assange faced prosecution in the US, and again the obvious conclusion will be that they so chose because no real evidence supports that theory. I myself have never taken any position whatsoever on the question, whether Assange did or did not commit prosecutable crimes against the United States: I have, in fact, here and elsewhere, avoided any and all speculation on that question, for it turns on facts unavailable to me

As I told you immediately upthread, I regard the enormous energy devoted to the spewing of pure unadulterated bullshit about the Assange extradition case as one of the saddest features of the saga, since IMO bullshit prevents people from thinking clearly and accurately -- and hence typically has the effect of maintaining the status quo

One example of such bullshit is the claim that Swedish prosecution of Assange would represent an attack on the freedom of the press. Sweden has, in fact, some of the most generous journalist-protection laws in the world: current law prevents prosecution for disclosures, and public opinion strongly supports the current law. In this regard, the situation in Sweden is much more favorable to Assange than (say) the situation in the UK

Of course, it would be very interesting if you actually had CIA documents that showed the agency planning to involve Assange in a sex scandal. Your claim to have seen such documents, however, is tellingly made without evidence. If you had such documents, would not you want to publicize them?

The linking of Sweden to the extraordinary rendition scandals of the Bush II era, as an excuse for Assange to avoid Sweden, is yet another example of crude mind-fucking bullshit

First the facts:

It is true that, around December 2001, Sweden repatriated Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery to Egypt in violation of Swedish law, where they were tortured. But when the facts came to light, there was public outrage in Sweden, together with official apologies to the victims and monetary restitution for the wrong. Sweden's behavior there, unfortunately, was no worse than the behavior of many other countries. In the Anglophone world, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are known to have engaged in extraordinary renditions: all three have paid monetary restitution to victims. In the rest of Europe, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Turkey are known to have engaged in extraordinary renditions: other than Sweden, to my knowledge, none have paid victims any monetary restitution, though Germany, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain have conducted national investigations into the matter

Let us now ask, how concerned was Assange about this? He set up Wikileaks in Iceland in 2006, some years after various sources first began publishing allegations that Iceland was involved in the extraordinary renditions scandals, and he remained established there for some years. When Assange founded Wikileaks, the Swedish cases were already well-known by then having come to light somewhat earlier. Four years later in 2010, Assange traveled to Sweden, hoping to move Wikileaks there, and applied for permanent residency: by then, the Swedish cases had been public knowledge for more than five years, but this apparently did not matter to Assange at the time. Allegations regarding UK involvement in extraordinary rendition began to surface by 2005. UK involvement in the extraordinary rendition program was common knowledge, and the subject of regular news reports, for several years before Assange fled from Sweden to the UK in 2010 to avoid prosecution. Again, this apparently did not matter to Assange at the time