Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong (New Statesman)

[struggle4progress]

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange
By David Allen Green
Published 03 September 2012 10:34

... it may be possible that there is a subjective fear of being extradited to the United States from Sweden, based on the mistaken belief that it would be easy to extradite him to the United States. However, as set out above, even if the United States can get round the First Amendment, Assange would have protections under the Swedish-United States treaty, under ECHR and EU law, and under the domestic law of both Sweden and England. Nonetheless, if he has that fear then this mistaken belief may be sincerely held.

But even taking any subjective fears at their very highest, unless and until there is any extradition request by the United States, then due process of an investigation into allegations of rape and sexual abuse in Sweden must be the priority, and Assange should return to face the accusations. As it stands the criminal investigation is frustrated and unresolved. And complainants of rape and sexual abuse have rights too.

Then there is the rational explanation. In view of the significant protections he would have against onward extradition to the United States from Sweden, it would appear that the only rational (as opposed to subjective) explanation for his refusal is not that he is seeking to avoid any onwards extradition; it is that he simply wants to avoid interrogation and any prosecution for allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

A long careful accurate discussion of the facts and the nonsense surrounding the extradition

[rachel1]

1. k&r n/t