so tell me - what does that statement actually say, and does CMs statements make sense in the light of that statement?
The British Empire and the American Empire were once powerful, now they are not worth a heck..
I see that again John Mekki avoided the question, so let's see what the answer is:
This is one of the things
that Craig Murray said on oct 22nd:
Craig Murray said:
CIA supporters in the UK have argued vociferously that it would be impossible for Sweden to give Assange the assurance he would not be extradited to the United States, with which he would be prepared to return to Sweden to see off the rather pathetic attempted fit-up there. In fact, as extradition agreements are governmental not judicial instruments, it would be perfectly possible for the Swedish government to give that assurance.
Let's see what Sweden has said (Aug 24th, so well before the blog post above)
Sweden's statement for the OAS Meeting of Foreign Ministers said:
Allow me to clarify, and in some parts reiterate, the state of Swedish law in this case.
State of the law
[...]
Swedish legislation does not foresee the possibility of issuing guarantees that extradition will not take place.
So, there you have it. Sweden publicly saying that Swedish law does not leave room for the possibility to give any guarantees. This of course matches what
Mark Klamberg has described, also in August..
Mark Klamberg said:
To summarize, if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court. Without an actual request it is difficult to legally asses the exact discretion and whether the Government can exercise such discretion.
But, that is not all. The statement from Sweden also describes what the law say about valid extradition request. Let's see what Craig Murray said again:
Craig Murray said:
and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.
and here is Sweden:
Sweden's statement for the OAS Meeting of Foreign Ministers said:
The Extradition Act also includes grounds for refusal of extradition, such as political or military offences and situations in which the person who is extradited is at risk of persecution. If the person sought does not consent to the extradition, the request for extradition is examined by Sweden's Supreme Court before a final decision on extradition is made.
So
the law does not allow for JA to be extradited to the US for espionage and terrorism.
But it's not over...
Craig Murray also tells us why the US hasn't already asked for the extradition.
Craig Murray said:
have been struck by the naivety of those who ask why the United States could not simply request Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom. The answer is simple – the coalition government. Extradition agreements are government to government international treaties, and the decision on their implementation is ultimately political and governmental – that is why it was Teresa May and not a judge who took the final and very different political decisions on Babar Ahmad and Gary Mackinnon.
[...]
Most Liberal Democrat MPs are happy to endorse the notion that Assange should be returned to Sweden to face sexual accusations. However even the repeatedly humiliated Lib Dem MPs would revolt at the idea that Assange should be sent to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement in the United States for the work of Wikileaks. That is why the United States has held off requesting extradition from the United Kingdom, to avoid the trouble this would cause Cameron. I am not speculating, there have been direct very senior diplomatic exchanges on this point between Washington and London.
There you have it, and he's not even speculating!
So again that is where this sentence comes in:
Craig Murray said:
and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.
But, there's just a small detail.
Sweden may not extradite to a third country without the permission of the country that allowed the extradition to Sweden - that is - the UK. So Camereron will still need to be embarrassed.
And finally, here's Sweden again:
Sweden's statement for the OAS Meeting of Foreign Ministers said:
Sweden is bound by its international law obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights not to extradite any person at risk of capital punishment or inhuman treatment. These undertakings under the European Convention are also Swedish law.
In the hypothetical event of an extradition request being received, all the legal guarantees under Swedish law and Swedish obligations under international law will be respected fully.
So, to summarize the errors in Craig Murrays blog post.
- Sweden cannot give a guarantee over and above the one Sweden already has given.
- Sweden cannot extradite JA to the US for terrorism or espionage.
- Sending JA to Sweden does not exclude Cameron from the proceedings.
As I said before - stupidity.
(I wonder if this post means that I'm now a CIA supporter?)
