How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Radio
News Home
TV
Shop
News
Sport
Local
Children
Science
Environment
more Topics
help
ABC Search
Keywords
The Drum Archive Opinion You Said It Contributors Photos Video Blogs Polls Contribute Popular Topics
5 DECEMBER 2012
Find More Stories
How Australia can end the
Assange stalemate
Search ABC News
Join us on Facebook
Subscribe to our RSS feed
99 Comments
DONALD ROTHWELL
Follow us on Twitter
Australia can help Julian
Assange negotiate his legal
problems while remaining
consistent with the norms of
international law and with the level of assistance that would be offered to other
Australians, writes Donald Rothwell.
This week Julian Assange, the Australian founder of Wikileaks, passed the second anniversary
of his legal troubles arising from a Swedish issued European Arrest Warrant.
News Just In
Philippines town washed away
as Typhoon toll rises
However, notwithstanding the twists and turns in his legal battles, and ultimately his success
in seeking diplomatic asylum from Ecuador, Assange's situation is no closer to resolution. He
remains at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and refuses to leave because he fears being
eventually extradited to the United States to face various charges associated with the
publication by Wikileaks of US diplomatic cables.
Economic growth slows to 3.1pc
To date there is nothing on the public record to suggest the US has commenced legal
School evacuated after student
brings hand grenade
proceedings against Assange and his extradition to the US has not been sought. The US
Ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey Bleich, has publicly stated the US is not seeking Assange's
extradition.
Provided Assange remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he enjoys certain protections under
international law. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides under Article
22 that diplomatic premises such as an embassy are 'inviolable'. As such, the embassy cannot
be entered by the British authorities without consent.
However the UK has indicated that it does not recognise Ecuador's granting of asylum and if
Assange were to leave the Embassy he is liable to arrest and extradition to Sweden.
Ecuador revealed in mid-August - as the Assange matter reached a pivotal point- that Britain
had threatened to rely on its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act and revoke the Ecuadorian
Embassy's diplomatic protection so as to enter and seize Assange.
This threat was extraordinary and without modern precedence and it was unsurprising that
the Ecuadorian Government responded with such fury. British Foreign Secretary William Hague
has now downplayed any suggestion that the Ecuadorian Embassy will be raided, and
emphasised Britain will act consistently with international law.
Nevertheless, Hague and the British government have made it clear that they have a legal
obligation to Sweden to extradite Assange and that they will continue to seek his arrest for
breach of his bail conditions.
The recent suggestion by Ecuador that Assange, who reportedly is suffering from a lung
complaint arising from his confined living conditions, may need to leave the Embassy to seek
medical treatment could create a new twist to this saga.
However, unless Ecuador negotiates some form of 'safe passage' for Assange to access
medical treatment outside of the Embassy, Britain will detain Assange as soon as he steps
outside the front door. This latest development does however open up the intriguing possibility
that Assange's extradition to Sweden could still be refused on medical grounds and if his
condition was to further deteriorate his lawyers will no doubt seek to make that claim.
Australia has been remarkably silent on some of these recent developments. Throughout the
year Assange has been highly critical of what he claims has been a lack of support from the
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
Man to face Brisbane court on
'foreign incursion' charge
NAB moves on rates as
politicians trade blows
More
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Australian government, but Foreign Minister Bob Carr insists that Assange has received more
consular assistance than any other Australian in similar circumstances.
The reality is that Australia can still play a proactive, and perhaps even pivotal role, in seeking
to bring about a resolution to the current stalemate.
There are a least three options open to Australia, all of which fall within the ambit of consular
support for an Australian citizen and are broadly consistent with some of the initiatives the
Gillard Government has taken in 2012 to support other citizens.
First, the Australian High Commission in London can continue to support Assange and provide
him with consular assistance and where appropriate seek consular access to check on his
welfare. Regular visits of this nature would also give to Australia some independent capacity
to monitor Assange's health.
Second, Australia could seek diplomatic assurances from Stockholm that if Assange is
extradited to Sweden he will be subject to due process under Swedish law, that any trial would
be conducted consistently with international human rights norms, and that Australia would
enjoy full consular access to Assange during this time.
These assurances would assist in ensuring that Assange was treated in the same manner as
any other person under Swedish law. A possible outcome of this process is that the Swedish
prosecutor may determine that Assange has no case to answer and all potential criminal
charges against him are dropped.
In addition, Australia could seek an assurance from Sweden that following the completion of all
Swedish legal proceedings that Assange would be deported to Australia. This would be an
entirely appropriate outcome for an Australian citizen who has been subject to extradition to a
foreign country.
If the Gillard government was able to obtain these diplomatic assurances, which are consistent
with international law, then Assange would face his accusers in Sweden and not face the
prospect of onward extradition to the United States.
This would ensure the dual aim of Assange facing justice while also ensuring his protection
from any extra-legal process that could see him removed from Sweden to face an American
court.
Donald R. Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the ANU College of Law, Australian
National University. View his full profile here.
Email
Share
Print
House Rules
90 COMMENTS
Add your comment
05 Dec 2012 11:38:34am
David Hughes :
Throughout this whole saga I have only read that Sweden wants Assange extradited to face questioning. NOT to face
prosecution. I would like to point out that we are now in the 21st century and that there are several ways to question
an individual remotely at very low cost. How about Skype, or any other teleconferencing application. Or maybe just hop
on one of the daily flights from Stockholm to London. He could been questioned by the Swedish prosecutor while
attending a British police station or in the Ecuadorian embassy. No one should be extradited from anywhere to
anywhere just for questioning in this day and age. What is needed is a new process called “detain for questioning by a
foreign power”. Extradition cases should only be considered after charges have been laid and the evidence presented
for review by the courts.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:33:45am
I don't like the Moderator :
The counter for the comments tells that it is manipulated and corrupted.
The figuers are jumping back and forward.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:32:20am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
the yank :
It seems that Assange needs to be trotted out every week or so to make sure that none of us forget that he is still
around.
I could care less. Let him go to Ecuador and see how the government treats people that let out state secrets.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:23:07am
banged up :
Assange has been in detention/exile etc for how long?
You do not have to put someone behind bars to restrict their freedom, he has effectively put himself in a prison and
nobody has to feed/cloth him.
Manning will be punished by the US military, the embarrassment to the US will fade, Assange will still be holed up in
the embassy and eventually nobody will care anymore.
The US has not had to spend a cent to get him into a form of prison.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:12:02am
ant :
All very well and good but the fact is Assange hasn't been charged with anything. And there's a very good reason for
that. The Swedes have no case and they know it. The reason the first prosecutor dropped the case was that she had no
political agenda and could clearly see there was no case. The second prosecutor re-opened the case only after the
intervention of a conservative politician in Sweden who had the case moved to Gothenberg. He had a political agenda
and the rape allegations have had a political agenda ever since. The rape allegations are just a Trojan Horse in reverse,
not to get someone in to somewhere but to get someone out of somewhere and into a jurisdiction where the
government will do what America wants. The main reason for the rape allegations is to smear Assange and blacken his
name, the main interest in extraditing him, uncharged, to Sweden, is that there will be, surprise, surprise, no court
case but a quick trip to America by plane. So your idea that if all criminal charges were dropped (impossible because he
hasn't been charged) that would be the end of it is naive at best. It presupposes good faith on the part of the Swedish
government, which is ludicrous given what has gone on, and it presupposes good faith on the part of the American
political/military/intelligence/corporate establishment which is not simply naive but coming from what can only be
described as an absolute state of denial.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:10:10am
Melan :
When I always say Australia is the british colony and the head of Australia is English - people tell me it is no true. Well here you go again. Australian government is nothing but the English puppets.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:07:49am
Silence :
How is Bradley Manning goes these days? The Department of Defense has no options other than to silence both
Manning and Assange, otherwise its dirty secrets and criminally insane behaviour over the years will be revealed
further.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:13am
Michael :
Manning broke the law and was not a whistle blower. If he had have leaked only criminal information he would
be, but he didn't he leaked everything he could.
Every one, government body, private company, or private citizen hides stuff. Next time you go to buy a house
how about you tell the person you are negotiating with what your top price is and see how well you go.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:31:11am
sea mendez :
Please nominate one significant thing that Bradley-Manning or Assange revealed that we didn't already know.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:56:25am
Sue :
I am not interested in Assange. He has nothing to offer except to show how far arrogance and ego will take you.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Leave my tax dollars alone and stop this ongoing rubbish that I, an Australian tax payer have to find the solutions for
everyone else on the planet. My insignificant ego and bank account can't take it any more.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:49:28am
Michael of Perth :
International Law, isn't that just some abstract term?
Often bandied by people who want someone else to behave in a manner to their liking?
We have a Professor in International Law, Professor of Mooching more likely.
Let's face it, International Law does not actually exist, so here we have a person, probably with tenure teaching about a
non-existent, fabricated subject that has bugger all basis in reality.
What a joke Australia has become.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:10:13am
Barry Mackenzie :
Are you seroius? You can't possibly be.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:15:22am
kenj :
Don't be ridiculous. International law is extensive, well established and far from obscure. It covers international
commerce, shipping and air transport, immigration, maritime law, war, national boundaries. Every time you get
on a plane or send a package overseas international law comes into effect.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:21:59am
Tom :
The best thing Julian Assange can do is hand himself over to Sweden.
If the US extradite him and prosecute him, he will simply be martyred.
Which is exactly what his cause needs.
Wikileaks simply needs another anonymous driving force outside of him to keep his work alive. The next person(s)
won't make the same mistakes he did.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:43:36am
Reco :
The British foreign minister leading the attack, Hague, cried and ranted when his favorite fascist dictator
Pinochet was arrested for human rights violations.
"Send him home" he wept.
After sobbing for Pinochet being arrested for proven crimes he now self righteously squeals that Ecuador is
harboring "alledged criminals"!
Coming from the guy who defended a proven criminal!
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:17:16am
schneids :
Donald Rothwell is assuming that the Americans will play by the rules of international law and not simply seize Julian
Assange and cart him off to some torture chamber. How quaint and nice.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:14:03am
JoeBloggs :
In times of tyranny and injustice when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:57:49am
Sue :
You need to change the channel to real life nature programs and stop watching so many westerns.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:31:48am
Miowarra :
Sue, you need to turn off the eye in the corner of the room and read more.
Read some history.
Read some political history.
Read some military history.
You'll find that the USA has ignored its own laws, International law, the laws of any other country in
which an alleged offence had been committed and relies on its military power to expmpt itself and its
agents from all inconvenient restraints of law.
They have demonstrated themselves untrustworthy and arrogant in the extreme and Mr Assange is very
wise not to trust them.
So are the rest of us.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:12:26am
Mitor the Bold :
It's funny how the British are prepared to raid an embassy to uphold its obligations to Sweden, but are not prepared to
let a sick man seek medical help to uphold any obligations to Ecuador. If Britain recognises Ecuador as a rogue state
whose rights are worthless then why do they allow them to maintain an embassy in London?
The whole thing stinks - if it were me up on charges regarding the same ambiguous descriptions of sexual
misdemeanour do you think the Metropolitan police would have half a dozen guys staked out at the embassy in case I
made a run for it?
It's hard to believe that it's happening in front of our eyes and yet people still refuse to see it and choose to believe
this is just a simple Swedish police matter.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:39:43am
Moi :
It may be inconvenient for you, but it is just a simple Swedish police matter.
The only reasons it is attracting attention is Assange's delusions of grandeur, his capacity to spin and a bunch of
gullible individuals who love conspiracy theories.
And BTW, Britain has no obligations to Ecuador in relation to allowing Assange to leave the country. To do so
would breach just about every principle of international law and provide a precedent for every man and his dog
that seeks to avoid facing justice.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:10:53am
JoeBloggs :
Yes, humans are perfect and never conspire to do things.
Especially spies and secret service organisation, we all know they never ever conspire to do things.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:34am
ant :
That's absolute nonsense. Show me one other case where the allegations are so flimsy they don't even
support charges being laid and yet the person involved is persecuted day and night and threatened with
being put before a grand jury on other, also unsupportable, charges of espionage despite being a
journalist and an editor and therefore protected by the First Amendment. You can't. Before there has
been no such case. To go on claiming it's all just business as usual when the fact that it's a political witch
hunt is staring you in the face is ridiculous. And as for your concern for international law, America didn't
give a damn about that when it invaded Iraq on a pack of lies and without UN approval. You are the
gullible individual if you think what is being done to Assange has anything to do with the law,
international or otherwise. What it has to do with is America's dirty laundry which it prefers to hide from
the 'gullible individuals' who still believe America is a beacon of democracy and justice.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:09:58am
sea mendez :
Define 'prepared to raid'. The preparations are taking an awful ling time.
What do the British authorities normally do with accused rapists and bail jumpers? Do they give them free
passes to seek medical treatment?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:18am
Alan W. :
No not so funny Mitor, not when you look at the record of the British government in complying with US demands
to hand over its citizens to the US for prosecution, this for acts that are crimes within the US but are legal
activities in the UK and were carried out within the UK!
You are spot on correct the conduct of the Swedish, UK and US governments in this matter stink.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:34:16am
VoR :
"It's funny how the British are prepared to raid an embassy ... "
They aren't. Hence the six months.
"It's funny how the British ... are not prepared to let a sick man seek medical help "
They are. No-one's stopping medical help reaching Assange if he stays in the Embassy. Should he leave and
should it be necessary they'll get an expert to visit the prison or arrange for treatment in an outside hospital.
" if it were me up on charges ..."
The Embassy would ask you to leave and have you forcibly removed if you hadn't complied by closing time.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:04:57am
el-viejo :
How many more assurances that Swedish sex offence charges are just that, and that there is no global conspiracy
against him, should be obtained to satisfy Mr Assange's feeling of self-importance? Will it only do when a fully fledged
Quadrilateral Assange Treaty is signed by the US, UK, Australia and Sweden, and is sworn on television by the four
heads of state pledging full immunity for Mr Assange from the laws of their respective nations?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:46:08am
Colleen Adams :
So if Mr Assange is exaggerating his present predicament, why the efforts to close down funding to wikileaks...
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:12:17am
Michael :
If you email deails were posted on a website including negotiations bank information and what you really
thought of your inlaws would you want it opperating?
The website breaks several different laws in several different countries. The company is also under
investigation for tax evasion last I heard.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:37:57am
sea mendez :
Are banks obliged to handle the transactions of everyone? Or are they allowed to refuse to certain
contracts?
I must admit to confusion on this point. You can go on Wikileaks and read an article about their financial
'blockade'. Then you can scroll down the page and make a donation by credit card.
If you care I would urge you to go to Wikileaks and make a donation now. You can do something about
their predicament.
Reply
Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
05 Dec 2012 11:12:00am
Politically Incorrect :
Except Sweeden has never given anybody assurances that they will not send Assange to the US if the US ask for
him.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:21:33am
ant :
They already have a sealed indictment against Assange ready to put him before a grand jury on trumped up
espionage charges in America, so I can't see exactly how it's not a conspiracy. Clearly it is.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:24:16am
AT :
What "assurances" would those be, el-viejo?
Sweden certainly hasn't made anything like the sort of assurance suggested in this article.
Had it been, this wouldn't be the issue it is today. There is something wildly disproportionate in the treatment of
Assange considering the relatively minor nature of the Swedish allegations. If, as you assert, "there is no global
conspiracy against him", how do explain the excessive pursuit of Assange?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:40:57am
Miowarra :
There have been NO "assurances that (alleged) Swedish sex offences are just that" from anybody with any
authority to cooment.
There have been prejudicial statements from high office bearers in both the USA and here which have declared
Mr Assange "guilty" without a trial. There is a secret USA Grand Jury persecution still under way trying to link
Mr. Assange with Pvt. Manning.
There is a prisoner exchange treaty or agreement between Sweden and the USA which allows his extradition
under the guise of prisoner transfer without the legal protection that an innocent accused is entitled to expect.
Sweden has a history of facilitation CIA "black" movements of innocent accused persons.
The USA has a history of "extraordinary rendition" of persons without any legal process, let alone a fair and
open one, to places where they have been tortured.
None of that has anything to do with "feelings of self-importance".
It has to do with justice.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:03:17am
Hudson Godfrey :
I guess the analogy is to last night's episode of The Closer, where the detective being obstructed from questioning her
suspect by the police holding him on minor charges in another state decided to post bail in order that she might rearrest him as soon as he set foot outside.
Granted that every step along the way to the rather odd situation Assange is in results from rather unusual legal
manoeuvres do we simply find ourselves asking whether one more would hurt?
Since the US haven't indicted Assange they still have no claim, but since neither we nor Ecuador have brought charges
against him then there is seemingly no basis for extradition. Maybe someone saw him jaywalking?
I suppose we could make something work, but I guess we'd need to be inclined to do so first, and so far the attitudes
our government have show are pretty well completely unsupportive of his case or more importantly of Wikileaks.
To my way of thinking we can be as clever and correct in our measured legal responses as we like, but all of that says
nothing of our attitude to the principles that are at stake given that Wikileaks has shown serious problems with the way
democratic governments use secrecy to do things the people don't countenance.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:03:09am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
DontLikeJulianAssange :
Julian Assange is a menace and has to be dealt with accordingly.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:45:26am
blax5 :
You must be one of those who regret he wasn't renditioned.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:12:29am
JoeBloggs :
Drone strike?
or
Polonium?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:00:36am
Waterloo Sunset :
He's a proven deceiver and should face his charges. Why should he be treated any differently?
He's also become a bore.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:16:08am
JoeBloggs :
"He's also become a bore"
Now that is the best reason I have ever heard to persecute someone for documenting what others have actually
said or did.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:59:15am
Amethyst :
Australian goverments have a deplorable history of assisting any Australian citizen in trouble overseas unless it is
politically expedient to do so. Assange is no different.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:46:24am
K:
hear hear, our government is akin to a limp wrist when t comes to looking after people overseas.Unless of
course you happen to be a high profile young female UN lawyer... Then they get involved.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:46:52am
Bill :
This is like a bad soap opera.
Assange made his bed and now refuses to lie in it.
And BTW Me, the Swedish charges are nothing to do with an idea or concept.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:20:54am
Michael :
Neither are the British charges which will result in him skipping bail.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:44:58am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Moi :
The solution to this stalemate is glaringly simple and has nothing to do with the Australian Government.
All Assange needs to do is leave the Embassy, hand himself over to UK authorities and be extradited to Sweden.
If his protests of innocence are real, he has nothing to fear and would be free to resume his life.
Over to you Julian. Do the right thing!
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:19:36am
Mitor the Bold :
Sure - if he were up on charges of drug smuggling in Bali I'm sure he'd get also get a fair and balanced hearing
there too, because justice always prevails. Do you live in Disneyland?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:43:51am
Moi :
OK, let's take up your own anology. Can you point to any Australians facing drug smuggling charges who
were convicted and clearly innocent? I can't.
The opportunistic cynicism displayed by Assange and his supporters is deeply disturbing.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:45am
JoeBloggs :
You find cynicism 'deeply disturbing'?
How is the tea cup ride at Disneyland?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:35:25am
Mitor the Bold :
You cannot demand someone 'do the right thing' unless they have confidence the other party will
'do the right thing'.
I don't trust the justice system of Bali - do you? From what I've read it is corrupt. I don't know if
specific cases are right or wrong - but if you were wanted for questioning in Bali regarding a bag
of cannabis they claim you had in your possession when you were last there, would you happily fly
there convinced that "If your protests of innocence are real, you have nothing to fear and would
be free to resume your life"?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:47:51am
K:
If it was that simple why haven't the Swedish authorities agreed to question him where he is. He has offered
that but for some strange reason they need him in Sweden, I wonder why. The questions are the same aren't
they?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:14:36am
Michael :
Yes because if police suspect you of being involved in ileagal or potentially ilegal activities they ask you
down to the station. Do you really think "hey how about we do it over the phone?" Would work here in
Aus?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:23:27am
Ture Sjolander :
Sweden did send a whole Swedish Court to Uganda so there is no problem at all to send the Swedish
prosecutor to London to interview Assange.
As he is not charge it is no problem for the stubborn Swedes to fly over within an hour to have it done.
The ugly thing here is that they wan't his BODY in a Swedish store room.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:29:15am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
a_boy :
The truth might well be that the Australian government is supporting Assange in some way, but I doubt it. We have
been too compliant and ignore how important Assange has been in giving people like Bradley Manning a conduit for
exposing heinous events.
I love Sweden, having friends there and hope to visit for the 8th or 9th time soon; but their legal system is not the
same as ours. Carr must bring pressure to bear on the Swedes to ensure that the murky accusations are clarified.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:25:57am
Terry :
I am not quite sure what this article is about.
Mr Assange has availed himself of every level of the UK justice system in his attempts to avoid extradition. It has been
decided that there are no grounds to prevent his extradition to Sweden.
He has broken the terms of his bail and is now wanted by the UK police.
It is true that Ecuador has granted him political asylum. (It is doubtful that this has any basis other than Ecuador is
also hostile to the United States).
The involvement of Australia should be limited to encouraging Mr Assange to honour his bail conditions and surrender to
the UK police. To do otherwise would not only encourage similar actions in future, but directly imply that the UK justice
system has dealt with this case incorrectly.
Any dispassionate review of the evidence shows that Mr Assange has some questions to answer in Sweden. Whether he
then faces charges will be decided by the Swedish legal system. We can decide at that point whether he needs further
consular assistance. I suspect he has plenty of fans in Sweden who will lobby for his release and provide top class legal
aid (free).
Should the USA apply at any point for his extradition, we can address that issue. At the moment it is pure speculation,
being used by Mr Assange to distract from his other legal problems.
Of course, should such extradition procedures be commenced, our role should be exactly that adopted in similar cases.
Mr Assange, despite his belief in his own importance, should not be allowed to avoid any legitimate charges he may or
may not face in the USA.
PS I hear he may be a misogynist (according to the 2012 Macquarie definition - would this alter our position?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:13:03am
That Guy :
I must admit to being a little bemused by the idea of an article on Assange. True, it must be hard for him not to
be able to swan about the globe and meet his adoring fans and avail himself of their charms but I'm thinking his
being couped up in the Ecuadorian embassy has been far more pleasant an experience than a certain someone
else I could name (ie the guy the US have locked up). Honestly I'm a little surprised to see anyone trying to
breath life back into this old chestnut.
What is strange is that your comment seemed more based in reality and common sense than the reasons for the
article. Well done.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:14:49am
Nell :
What you imply in your postscript is so deeply insulting to people who value justice and freedom.
There are already so many "irregularities" in the legal processes that have applied to Assange in Sweden, in the
UK and the USA that one could be forgiven for losing confidence in the system altogether.
The backdrop to the Wikileaks saga is the Murdoch saga and the Cameron government response to the Leveson
recommendations tells us everything we need to know about the operation of justice in the UK.
One is reminded of the trial and execution of Mata Hari in 1917 - the doctored, trumped-up evidence, the total
impotence and failure of the Netherlands to defend its citizen, the institutional murder of someone whose only
crime was that she was a loose-cannon with too much information on the corruption and sexual proclivities of
the French military aristocrats facing rebellion by the working-class they treated as expendable cannon-fodder.
They eliminated her to protect themselves from scrutiny and the same rage that was fuelling the October
revolution in Russia.
Mr Assange has always been willing to answer any questions in the UK for which there is precedence. The
unwillingness of the Swedish authorities to do this, the overriding of their own citizens (the two complainants)
and so much else leads any dispassionate person to smell a rat!
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:23:25am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
kenj :
This simplistic analysis does an excellent job of ignoring key aspects of the Assange case that have been well
established in the public domain. Assange has offered to be interviewed by Swedish officials in the UK, a course
of action they have used with other suspects in other cases in various European countries, an offer they have
refused. The actions of the Swedish prosecutors have shown signs throughout of political posturing. The charges
against Assange are on their merits questionable at best and, with at least one of the complainants, appear to
be politically motivated. US officials have been conducting grand jury proceedings against Assange and
reportedly have obtained a sealed indictment for criminal offenses in the US. It is beyond question that the US
intelligence and military agencies have been conducting intensive operations against him and Wikileaks and
would be keen to see him in US custody. US politicians and officials have described him as a terrorist and -bizarrely -- as a 'traitor'. Assange's belief that faces an increased chance of extradition to the US from Sweden is
reasonably well founded. The US has close intelligence ties to Sweden and its political leadership. The evidence
is that Assange could be 'temporarily released' by Sweden to the US as an administrative exercise or with
minimal judicial interference. Assange has every right to be concerned and to seek asylum.
On a more disturbing note in the last few days nameless Australian officials have been reported in our media as
saying that Wikileaks has been made ineffectual through various means (including bans on donations via Paypal)
and that Assange has no option but to go to Sweden and even on to the US. This casual betrayal of an
Australian citizen by his own government and the glossing over of the underlying civil rights issues raised is truly
breathtaking. The US intends to snatch Assange for highly questionable political crimes, run him through a show
trial and destroy him as a human being -- just for speaking out! Any Australian government that cooperates with
this police state exercise should be hounded from office.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:28:03am
R.Ambrose Raven :
Terry's extravagant posturing of innocence is laughable; I'm sure that such as he were immensely surprised that
that nice Mr. Pinochet was perhaps not a gentleman.
Julian Assange's mother Christine recently tweeted the following facts about extraditions involving the US, the
UK, Sweden, and Australia.
1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot backed new Extradition Act Amendments making
it easier for U.S.A to extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it.
2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences.
3. The protection of "political" motives has been weakened. If the charge is "terrorism" then "political" cannot
apply to prevent extradition.
4. The U.S. recently expanded its definition of "terrorist" to include peaceful protesters, as "low level terrorism"
[rather as peaceful protesters here has been criminalised].
5. Under the new NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] legislation, the U.S became a police state - citizens
and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite detention applies.
6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish classified documents. Obama is now trying to label
media who do so as terrorists.
7. Modifications to the act included changing "protection from death penalty" to "likelihood the death penalty
would be carried out".
8. Note that the U.S. is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that
top 5.
9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months
imprisonment.
10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e.
evidence).
11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track "Temporary
Surrender" clause.
12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue
indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process.
13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.
14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were
tortured.
15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.
16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish
women in the Assange case.
17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam to protect Julian from "Temporary
Surrender" to the U.S via Sweden. Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:48:45am
Moi :
Gosh ... and Julian's mother is clearly an independent observer whose every word must be accorded
ultimate crediblility.
Perhaps someone should undertake an independent review of the "information" before weighing it up
against other credible sources.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:09:47am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
kenj :
That's right, pick the tiny bits out that suit your argument and ignore the rest however compelling
those arguments might be.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:20:28am
Trey :
Please attack the facts stated above if you believe them to be untrue. Attacking the source is
irrelevant.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:42:08am
Terry :
I don't have time to go through them all, and in any case most thinking and/or knowledgeable
people will see they are nonsense.
But here is one.
A grand jury (not THE Grand Jury)is a legal tradition that has survived in the USA but was
previously common in countries whose systems derived from the UK system.
It is "secret" for a reason: it is not a trial but a hearing of the state's allegations. It is "grand"
because it is larger than a normal jury. It only listens to the prosecutors because it does not
decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused. It decides whether the case the prosecutors put
up is worthwhile or frivolous or unable to stand.
It is a mechanism to prevent the state (or originally another party) putting up a charge simply to
harass the accused.
So a grand jury serves the interest of the public by restricting the power of the state. It is part of
the legal process. As far as I know it had no power of extradition.
This is not hard to find. That you (and Mr Assange's mother) are more taken with some conspiracy
theory reflects more on the validity of your views than anything else.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:25:14am
Alan W. :
Why don't you name the other "creditable" sources?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:30:42am
Johnny Boy :
More conspiracist nonsense from Ms Assange.
Sweden is one of the most liberal and progressive countries in the world. That's why Wikileaks servers
were based there, its why Assange (in June 2010) applied for residency there.
If any Assange advocates do not accept that Sweden is one of the most liberal and democratic countries
in the world, perhaps they would care to list 10 countries they think ARE more liberal and democratic
(please do not embarrass yourselves by listing Ecuador).
There is no evidence of any conspiracy, and no evidence that these charges are anything other than
exactly what they appear to be.
Assange has no way out. Maybe tomorrow, maybe a year from now, he will be driven out or thrown out
of the embassy to face justice, his health - and whatever is left of his ravaged reputation - utterly
destroyed.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:20:42am
JoeBloggs :
The USA doesn't need to bother with applying for extradition.
You see they have a separate agreement which allows Sweden to simply hand over anyone to the USA who
happens to be in Swedish custody (awaiting questioning, charges, trial or otherwise) if the USA so wishes to
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
obtain that person.
This special agreement it outside of any extradition treaties.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:24:44am
Michael :
I find this very interesting.
All of this works on the assumption that Assange wants to come back to Australia and wants to co-operate.
I think the charges in Sweeden are a little shady but Assange seems hell bent on avoiding them. This can be for two
reasons.
Assange has reasons to avoid those charges in particular.
Or
The British and Australian governments are involved in a conspiricy with the US to abandon a commonwealth citizen to
being not charged with anything because he has not broken US law.
We have been assured by the US government and diplomats that they are not seeking extradition, by the Swiss that he
is to be charge over his conduct involving those young women. Why does the government need to seek further
intervention like the author suggests?
Is getting an assurance from the swiss that they will deport him to AUs when done be any better then the current
assurances?
I will admit I don't like the man because he indescriminetally posts all information he has, whether it has to do with
corruption or not. Some information is hidden for a reason and Assange doesn't seem to care.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:49:50am
Colleen Adams :
Swedish not Swiss
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:13:26am
Michael :
Point taken.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:11:08am
Jimmy Necktie :
"I will admit I don't like the man because he indescriminetally posts all information he has"
And if he were to start filtering information would you then accuse him of bias?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:21:00am
Me :
Dear Australian and US Governments,
Thanks for teaching an entire generation what corrupt bastards you are. Assange is one guy, but the damage you've
inflicted on yourselves in your pathetic attempts to get him is astronomical.
You can't arrest an idea. You can't jail a concept. All you've done is shown us how terrified you are of transparency.
So that's what we'll give you,
Anon
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:09:20am
Trey :
Well said, Me!
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:26:08am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Neil :
Do you think corruption exists only in the government?
It also exists in the business world, and in many individuals I know.
Assange himself is corrupt, or that there is no doubt (I'm not talking about the Swedish charges). I don't know
why people put the fool on a pedestal.
The blind leading the blind I guess.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:35am
Jimmy Necktie :
"Do you think corruption exists only in the government?"
No. But corporations and individuals do not make or enforce laws that affect us all.
How is Assange corrupt?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:30:59am
Alan W. :
Neil, I think you must be blind if you don't understand that big business IS the government, here and in
every other western "democracy".
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:38:43am
AT :
"Assange himself is corrupt, or [sic] that there is no doubt"
Would you care to substantiate that comment, Neil?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:27:44am
sea mendez :
So go donate to Wikileaks. Contrary to the hype you can even use major credit cards.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:30:30am
JoeBloggs :
Only because an Icelandic District Court had ordered the payment processing company Valitor to
immediately reopen the merchant account of DataCell and start processing credit card payments for the
Wikileaks organization.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:39:34am
maus :
Dear Me, thank for teaching an entire generation that fairy tales are still important.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:42:02am
Johnny Boy :
I think the US would be utterly delighted with the current situation.
There are significant political and legal hurdles in charging Assange in the US, and even in the event he is
charged, he has a variety of defences he could avail himself of.
In the current situation, the US don't have to worry. Assange is effectively incarcerated, with his computer traffic
presumably being monitored. Reputationally, this is disastrous for him. His dwindling fanbase may have all
manner of convoluted conspiracies to explain his behaviour, but to the general public, he simply looks like a
coward with a consciousness of guilt.
The US don't have to do anything. Forget the CIA, wikileaks greatest enemy is Julian Assange. Through his
behaviour he has destroyed and undermined everything he set out to achieve.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:17:17am
sinbad :
Australia will do whatever Washington tells us to do. Debating Australia's options is pointless as our options are what
the US decides.
Am I the only one to notice that New Zealand has a lot more backbone than Australia and actually still applies NZ law
and not US law.
Three cheers for the mighty Kiwi's
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:23:19am
sea mendez :
Like abstaining from the Palestine vote the other day?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:22:30am
sinbad :
That just goes to show how much smarter Bob Carr is compared to Gillard. Gillard wanted to blindly
follow the US whilst Carr argued that an abstention makes us look like we are independent without
actually disagreeing with the US. It sure fooled a lot of people.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:51:32am
maus :
Yet we didnt vote with them on the Palestine status vote.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:34:04am
Politically Incorrect :
Try telling that to Kim Dotcom
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 9:13:23am
sentri7 :
Given the British were so quick to look at the idea of raiding the equadorian embassy, I wouldnt think they or sweden
would lose to much sleep over breaking promises to assange. He is stuck where he is.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:05:35am
Terry :
I assume from your lack of comment that you believe it quite OK for Mr Assange to break his solemn promise to
adhere to his bail conditions.
The UK and Sweden have no reason to promise Assange anything, other than to treat him appropriately under
the relevant law. Both have been scrupulously clear and fair.
It is Mr Assange who has treated the law (and his own word) with contempt in his desire to avoid going to
Sweden, a country he apparently found quite enjoyable prior to the incidents over which he is to be questioned.
Has their been a change in Swedish extradition law lately? Or is it more reasonable to assume that "fear of the
USA" is another ploy, just a bit more legal than bail jumping.
Given that by refusing to honour his promise to comply with is bail conditions Mr Assange has shown his word to
be worthless, should we believe anything else he says?
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:17:27am
Mitor the Bold :
"Has their been a change in Swedish extradition law lately?"
There seems to have been a bit of a change in how Sweden questions suspects lately. Now, it seems,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
they insist on extradition rather than doing it by proxy through the Metropolitan police or (god forbid)
sending a detective all the way (2-hr flight) over to the UK.
You would think - after letting him leave with a 'no case to answer' conclusion when he voluntarily
surrendered himself for questioning - they would accept the responsibility to take the mountain to
Muhammed.
Assange has good reason (fed by a little paranoia) to fear the Americans are trying to get him and that
the Swedes are complicit. There are things about this sexual assault allegation that do not make sense
prima facie. To deny this is simply to express an opinion on the man rather than the facts.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:32:01am
JoeBloggs :
Yes just like all those refugees around the world who broke their solemn promise to adhere to their
trumped up convictions (which are to die quietly).
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 10:26:04am
sea mendez :
Journo: Is a raid a possibility?
Cop: Maybe
Headline: POLICE CONSIDERING RAID
Gullible conspiracy theorists: See its all part of the NWO, man.
Reply
Alert moderator
05 Dec 2012 11:35:32am
JoeBloggs :
Sea Mendez, you could have said what actually occured which was:
British authorities “warned” Ecuador that they could raid its embassy and arrest Julian Assange if he is
not handed over. The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister responded by saying such a move would be a “flagrant
violation” of international law.
Ecuador received a "direct" threat from the authorities in London that they are prepared to storm the
Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest Assange if he is not delivered to their custody.
Ricardo Patino, Ecuador's Foreign Minister, said the "written threat," an aide memoire, was delivered to
Ecuador's Foreign Ministry and ambassador in London.
The letter received by the Ecuadorian Embassy stated that British authorities have a legal basis, founded
in the Diplomatic and Consular Act of 1987, to arrest Assange on the Embassy’s premises.
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act
1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the
Embassy,” read the letter. "We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable
of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
So much for your cop in the street theory Sea Mendez.
Try using facts in the future instead of silly conspiracy theories.
Reply
Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
How Australia can end the Assange stalemate - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
This service may include material from
Site Map
Agence France- Presse (AFP), APTN,
Sections
Media
Subscribe
Connect
Feedback
News Home
Just In
Local
World
Business
Entertainment
Sport
The Drum
Weather
Blogs
Tag Library
Archive
Video
Audio
Photos
Podcasts
RSS Feeds
NewsMail
Engage
Upload
Contact Us
Email/Mobile
Suggest a
Contributor
Corrections &
Clarifications
ABC Home
© 2012 ABC
About the ABC
Careers
Conditions of Use
ABC Services
ABC Contacts
Privacy Policy
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4408852.html?WT.svl=theDrum[5/12/2012 12:32:51 PM]
Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World
Service which is copyright and cannot be
reproduced.
AEDT = Australian Eastern Daylight
Savings Time which is 11 hours ahead of
UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)