No, I have to think that if there were shenanigans, it would have come from pressure from above. There is no way the general Swedish justice system is in the bag for America. Especially with such a high profile case.
FTR, BTW, FYI: Snowden isn’t connected with Wikileaks, but the Freedom of the Press Foundation is: Freedom of the Press Foundation - Wikipedia
Let’s see what the ACLU has to say:
February 4, 2016
NEW YORK — The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has reportedly concluded that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained. An official announcement is expected Friday morning in Geneva.
Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction:
“In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. Indeed, even the prolonged criminal investigation of Wikileaks itself has had a profound chilling effect. The Justice Department should end that investigation and make clear that no publisher will ever be prosecuted for the act of journalism.”
And from today’s Politico: Although Assange has legions of determined enemies in the U.S., especially pro-Clinton Democrats and national security insiders who consider him a hostile foreign agent, some influential actors may not be enthusiastic about his prosecution.
The American Civil Liberties Union, characterizing him as a journalist, warned that prosecuting Assange “would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/julian-assange-charges-wikileaks-997122
Notwithstanding the ACLU’s remarks, I don’t consider this cut and dried. We don’t know what Assange is charged with after all. I do feel reluctant to reach for the pitchforks quite yet.
Setting aside the optics argument (and therefore taking your remarks out of context), honeytraps are a routine aspect of spycraft. Snowden doesn’t need to be targeted because he is no longer an active threat: the only issue is deterrence. The idea could be that Wikileaks was a continuing threat to US security and needed to be taken down. US intelligence (in this story) responded with a decapitation strike. I don’t find this at all implausible.
Again, I think there is a meaningful distinction between acts of journalism and what has been shown to be likely acts of espionage (through acts of journalism). It is reasonable to assert that Assange should not be prosecuted for publishing, but that does not give him immunity for criminal acts.
I do want to note that I find Politico’s characterizations bizarre. I’m not sure how many Liberals would characterize themselves are “pro-Clinton Democrats”. The election is over and we’ve moved on. The phrase seems to imply that the prosecution of Assange is instead a revenge persecution for the election loss. Similarly, dismissing national security concerns given everything we know about the last election is naive at best.
I agree that seeing the charges would be helpful.
My position on this is even if you’re intentionally leaking and not leaking certain information to get certain results then you should be free to do so. Obligation of coverage on that information is the people who uncover the information, the people presenting the information, and the people consuming it.
Well, several press articles in the last day have really blown a hole in the “Obama framed Assange” theory, showing how paranoid the nonsense is.
First, the New York Times is reporting that the sealed indictment came about during the Trump Administration, not the Obama Administration. I infer from the article that the indictment may be more about Assange’s relations with Russian intelligence services, a la Guccifer 2.0 and so on. But that’s just my guess.
Further, the rather silly “news” organization known as the Intercept affirms that the Obama DoJ did not seek an indictment of Assange, on the two bases that it was not a good idea and that the First Amendment protected Assange.
So the WikiLeaks fans would have us believe that the Obama Administration secretly framed Assange in order to extradite him to the US, but the stories coming out indicate pretty firmly that the Obama Administration did NOT have a sealed indictment of Assange, and appeared to have had a thorough policy debate ending up with the decision that they would NOT indict Assange.
Wow, conspiracy theory fail. I’m shocked.
Last week, you wouldn’t have bought that the Trump DoJ had sealed indictment. But hey, if the Intercept affirms that Obama didn’t have one, that’s good enough for me. Conspiracy busted!
And how is it you know what my opinion would be? The same keen reasoning you’re into other conspiracy theories?
Agreed. The argument seems to be that if the UK extradited Assange to Sweden, it would be easier for the US to then extradite him from Sweden to the US. That seems to me to be untenable, for the following reasons.
- The UK is one of the US’s closest allies and has not shown any reluctance in extraditing people to the US in the past. In fact, concerns have been raised repeatedly in the UK that the US-UK treaty is lopsided and makes it easier for the US to get someone extradited from Britain than for Britain to extradite someone from the US. Here’s an older news item on it (about extradition generally, not Assange):
“The Britons extradited to the US - and the American paedophile who gets to stay”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9362486/The-Britons-extradited-to-America…-and-the-American-paedophile-who-gets-to-stay.html
-
Contrary to the assertions made by some posters in this thread, the Swedish extradition process involves the courts, just like in the UK and the US. So it’s not the case that once Assange is in Sweden the Swedish government can just put him on a plane to the US without due process.
-
If Britain were to extradite Assange to Sweden, that would make it more difficult to extradite him from Sweden to the US, than from the UK, because now two governments, the UK and Sweden, would have to consent to the extradition to the US, not just one.
Under the rule of specialty in extradition law, an extradition from country A to country B is for the limited purpose of trying the individual in country B on the charges alleged in the extradition warrant approved by country A. If country B wants to charge the individual with other charges, or in turn extradite him to a third country, then country A has to consent, through the extradition process in country A’s laws.
So if Britain extradites Assange to Sweden, and the US then applies to Sweden to extradite him, both the British and Swedish extradition processes apply - and Assange just has to win in one of those processes to block the extradition. The US would have to win in both the UK and the Swedish extradition processes to get him. In what universe does that make it easier for the US to extradite Assange?
By the way, I would not be terribly surprised if Mueller has looked at indicting Assange.
Do you have a cite for that, perchance? Because it doesn’t match the description of the Swedish extradition process which is on the Swedish government website: “Government Offices of Sweden: Extradition for Criminal Offences.”
Too long to cut and paste, so I’ll summarise, from the section on “Conditions for Extradition to a [Non-Nordic] State Outside the EU”
General Principles of Extradition Under Swedish Law
-
Extradition from Sweden is governed by the Swedish “Extradition for Criminal Offences Act”. It’s not simply left to government discretion.
-
The general extradition principle of “double criminality” applies: the offence for which extradition is sought must be a crime under Swedish law, and must carry a possible sentence of at least one year.
-
Sweden will not grant extradition for military or political offences. Nor can extradition be granted if there is fear that the individual would be subject to persecution in the requesting country for personal characteristics, including political beliefs.
-
The country requesting extradition must show cause for the extradition. The rule of specialty applies and if extradition is granted, the requesting country must agree not to try the individual except for the charges alleged in the extradition application.
-
Sweden will not grant extradition if the individual faces the death penalty in the requesting country.
Steps for Extradition from Sweden
-
The requesting country files a request for extradition with the Swedish Central Authority for extradition. The Central Authority reviews the request and determines if on its face it meets the tests for extradition. If the Central Authority concludes that the application is incomplete or does not meet the requirements of Swedish extradition law, the Government summarily rejects the application.
-
If the Central Authority concludes that the application on its face satisfies the requirements of Swedish extradition law, it refers the application to the Office of the Prosecutor-General for review. That Office is required to conduct a detailed review to see if the conditions for extradition under Swedish law are met.
-
As part of that review, the Office of the Prosecutor-General refers the application to the local prosecution office in the Swedish municipality where the individual is living. The local prosecution office investigates the application on the same basis as a preliminary criminal investigation under Swedish law. If they conclude that the claim is not met, that ends it.
-
If the prosecution office concludes the test for extradition is met, but the individual opposes the request for extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor General must file the application in the Swedish Supreme Court, which then considers the application and gives its opinion on whether the application for extradition meets the requirements of Swedish law.
-
If the Swedish Supreme Court rules that the requirements for extradition under Swedish law are not met, the Government cannot extradite the individual.
-
If the Swedish Supreme Court rules that extradition is available under Swedish law, the Government can choose to extradite the individual. However, the Government is not required to do so. “May extradite” not “Shall extradite”
So overall, there’s a fairly lengthy and elaborate procedure under Swedish law, with a lot of due process to ensure that the requirement for extradition indeed Swedish law are met.
It’s simply not the case that extradition in Sweden is purely a political decision for the Government to decide. Extradition has to be approved by the Central Extradition Authority, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Swedish Supreme Court, before it ever comes to the Government.
Most importantly, if the Swedish Supreme Court rules extradition is not available under Swedish law, the Government cannot extradite.
Of course, that webpage is probably all just disinformation put up by the CIA. 
Yes, I could see that. If Assange and WikiLeaks just played the passive role of receiving documents and posting them, they’re probably protected as journalists under the First Amendment - the Pentagon Papers principle.
But if they were involved in some way in hunting out the documents and encouraging someone to steal them electronically, they could be liable for conspiracy or as a party to electronic data theft.
And if they worked with some other country or a foreign intelligence agency to time releases specifically to influence elections in the US, there might be an offence under US elections law - that “thing of value” issue that has been previously debated here.
It’s a “wait and see” situation - what will Mueller present in his reports (or indictments)?
I’m afraid I disagree with that analysis. Most extradition treaties incorporate the Rule of Speciality, mentioned earlier.
If Country A extradites an individual to Country B, and then Country C applies to Country B to extradite that individual, Country B has to get permission from Country A.
So if Russia extradites Snowden to Austria, and then the US applies to Austria to extradite
Snowden, Russia has to consent to the extradition. If Austria were to extradite Snowden over Russia’s objection, it would be in breach of its treaty obligations to Russia.
Exactly. Very basically, Mueller has charged all the Russian spies, so why wouldn’t he charge someone (who they actually have a chance at apprehending) if he can prove that they knowingly conspired with those Russian spies in a concerted effort working towards a common goal?
The reason elections and popular opinion matters is that extradition is not solely a matter for the courts. Extradition treaties always leave the final decision on extradition to the executive, as in the Swedish extradition process I outlined earlier.
The first step in extradition is generally a legal review, ending up in the courts ruling on whether extradition would be permitted under that country’s law.
But the courts don’t have the authority to order extradition. If they rule that extradition is legally permitted, they certify that ruling to the executive branch of government.
It’s the executive branch that then decides whether or not to extradite the individual. Extradition treaties almost invariably preserve that power for the executive: the executive may order extradition if the courts certify extradition is legally available, but the executive is not required to do so. “May”, not “Shall”.
And since that final decision is made by the elected branch of government, popular opinion matters.
The UK and Sweden both have elections and well-informed populations. The popular view about extraditing Assange to the US would be something the Home Secretary or the Swedish equivalent would take into account.
Here’s a good Lawfare blog post that people may find interesting:
“Will the United States Be Able to Extradite Assange?”
I didn’t take it that way. I interpreted as, “The left is divided on this subject,” or, “Here are 2 groups that disagree with one another.” It’s Politico after all.
Yeah, that’s basically the point I’m pushing. I want to see a clear and resilient carve-out for the mainstream media. And a debate about whether charges in fact don’t set a bad precedent.
WTF? As I recall, a British court let Assange out on bond. A number of his British friends chipped in to pay for his bond, assuring the court that he as no flight risk and that they’d see to it that he came back to court when summoned. Then he scampered off to the Ecuadorian embassy, where he’s been holed up ever since.
Am I misremembering things?
It’s a non-binding advisory opinion from the UN working group that came out close to three years ago.
It’s been largely ignored by the British and Swedish courts who have taken the position that Assange is a fugitive, not a detainee.
I must say, I’m a bit confused by the notion of a “sealed indictment”: it even sounds a bit sinister. We don’t have such a thing, so I can’t tell whether it’s the equivalent of our (formal) preliminary hearing before a magistrate that starts the court processes in motion, or an earlier stage in the process of investigation and referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (which is not public, for fear of prejudicing any eventual trial). I don’t think we formally issue charges in absentia, just indicate that the police “wish to interview” someone or maybe even issue an arrest warrant if someone is on the run, but the precise details of why and what the likely evidence will be are still withheld from the public for the same reason (the person concerned and their lawyers have, of course, the obvious route to finding out and preparing their answers.
I defer to your expertise. You clearly know more than I do.