I continue to do all I can to help Julian Assange in his struggle against the mire of false allegations with which governments are attempting to bring down Wikileaks and get him eventually to perpetual solitary confinement in the USA. I was with Julian again in the Embassy last week, and shall be visiting him there again shortly.
Which begs this question. If, as the government falsely claims, this is purely a case of genuine criminal investigation, with no political overtones, and if Julian Assange really is nothing more than an alleged criminal who has jumped bail, then why am I, and others helping him, not under arrest for aiding and abetting or conspiracy? Plainly the government need to get their narrative straight.
For MI5 and the police, if it makes it any easier, I shall be going on Thursday afternoon, (though I have no doubt you already knew that). You can arrest me then.
Sent. I also copied in my M.P. Steve McCabe and Attorney General, Dominic Grieve [email protected]
“Dear Mr Anders Perklev,
Many people in my country want to know why Marianne Ny appears to have been given special privileges to prosecute a minor case against Julian Assange. Is this the way the Swedish judicial system works? Every man I know would not step foot in Sweden any more for fear of trumped up charges being brought against them. Marianne Ny is supposed to be a prosecutor not a persecutor.
We are also concerned why facts found in articles like the one in Expressen http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/expressen-avslojar/interrogator-in-the-assange-case-friend-with-woman-accusing-wikileaks-founder/ published 18 months ago which showed a friendship existed between Irmeli Krans (police interrogator) and Anna Ardin (complainant) have not been reproduced in the UK media. Does Sweden not believe in the free transfer of important information that could clear a good man’s name?
The following open letter states my concerns, and those of many other ordinary people in England.
By email: [email protected]
OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN
Dear Anders Perklev,
The extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant is currently before the UK Supreme Court, who will decide whether to hear his appeal on the grounds it has not been issued by a proper judicial authority. Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.
On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?
Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?
Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.
Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However,Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?
Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml
This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”
Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.
I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?
Yours sincerely,
[John Goss, Birmingham, UK
Swedish translation by Joakim Ramstedt
Öppet Brev till Riksåklagare Anders Perklev
Anders Perklev
Riksåklagaren
Östermalmsgsatan 87C
Box 5553
114 85 Stockholm Sverige
Genom e-post: [email protected]
ÖPPET BREV TILL ANDERS PERKLEV, Riksåklagaren, SVERIGE
Bäste Anders Perklev,
Utlämning av Julian Assange till Sverige enligt den europeiska arresteringsordern är för närvarande under behandling i Storbritanniens Högsta domstol. Det som skall avgöras är om man skall höra hans överklagande med motiveringen att den inte har utfärdats av en laga rättslig myndighet. Mr Assanges fall har orsakat internationell uppmärksamhet och många europeiska medborgare undrar därför vilka rättssäkerhetsgarantier och skydd som finns i EAW systemet för personer som står inför polisutredningen i Europa. Mot bakgrund av detta, skulle ni möjligen kunna förklara för både svenska och icke svenska medborgare de aspekter av det svenska rättsliga förfarande för vilket du som Riksåklagaren har det övergripande ansvaret?
Den 6 december 2011 gjorde den svenska Åklagarmyndigheten ett uttalande och påpekade att Sverige beslutat att göra alla offentliga åklagare till så kallat ’rättsliga myndigheter’ för att därmed kunna utfärda europeiska arresteringsordrar enligt ramdirektivet. Detta förutsågs inte av de brittiska parlamentarikerna vid utarbetandet av den brittiska utlämningslagen 2003 (Hansard). En lag som starkt betonade att sådana arresteringsordrar bara bör kunna ges av en domstol. Får jag fråga varför du kände det nödvändigt att göra ovannämnda uttalande sagda datum?
Mr Assanges namn läcktes till pressen, till synes av Stockholms åklagarmyndighet, vilket är olagligt enligt Sveriges lagar. Skulle du kunna beskriva – för en internationell publik – vilka åtgärder som vidtogs för att undersöka detta och en sammanfattning av resultaten. Har de ansvariga identifierats och hur har detta i så fall hanterats?
Har du någon statistik eller uppskattning över hur ofta en svensk åklagare utser sig själv som förundersökningsledare i ett ärende? På den svenska åklagarmyndighetens engelska hemsida står det: ’När det gäller mindre allvarliga brott fortsätter polisen att leda förundersökningen’. Den allvarligaste anklagelsen mot Julian Assange beskrivs på åklagarmyndighetens egen webbplats som ’ett mindre allvarligt brott’. Det är därför svårt att förstå varför Marianne Ny var inblandad i fallet som utredningschef i detta skede.
Konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ från 2000 används väl fortfarande vanligen för att förhöra medborgare i andra länder? Marianne Ny uppgav dock att brittisk och svensk lag hindrade henne från att förhöra Julian Assange i London, vilket därmed var osant. Hennes uttalande togs senare tillbaks. Vilka disciplinära åtgärder är tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare när en högt uppsatt åklagare vilseleder allmänheten på detta sätt?
Kan du beskriva – om så bara i allmänna termer – på vilka grunder detta fall öppnades på nytt den 1 september 2010 efter Eva Finné, en högt uppsatt åklagare som utsetts av dig att granska ärendet, annullerade den ursprungliga arresteringsordern?
’Jag anser att det inte finns anledning att misstänka att han har begått våldtäkt. Detta gör att det nu endast återstår ett fall av sexuellt ofredande att undersöka.’
– Chefsåklagare Eva Finné När man studerar det läckta polisprotokollet på Internet – som miljontals människor över hela Europa har gjort – verkar det endast finnas ett nytt bevis som kan ha uppstått mellan Eva Finnés beslut den 25 augusti 2010 och återupptagandet av förundersökningen: en trasig använd kondom. Emellertid framgår det av den rättsmedicinska analysen från den 25 oktober 2010, vilken ingår i åtalsprotokollet, att detta bevis inte styrker något brott. Några anklagelser relaterade till detta objekt är inte heller nämnda i den europeiska arresteringsordern som utfärdades av Marianne Ny den 18 november 2010. För att tala klarspråk kunde nämligen ingen DNA varken från målsägare eller misstänkt hittas på denna kondom.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml
Detta förefaller inte uppfylla Åklagarmyndighetens krav på objektivitet. På din myndighets hemsida kan man läsa: ’Teknisk bevisning måste naturligtvis tas upp och utredas på ett korrekt och säkert sätt. Åklagaren måste också vara objektiv när han eller hon inleder ett åtal. Under rättegången är det visserligen åklagarens uppgift att bevisa att ett brott har begåtts, men åklagaren är även skyldig att ta vederbörlig hänsyn till något som skulle kunna förändra situationen när det gäller bevisning’.
Återigen, vänligen förklara – för den svenska och internationella allmänheten – om detta är ett disciplinärende och i så fall vilka disciplinära åtgärder finns tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare?
Särskilt bekymmersamt är att konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ inte har använts i detta fall. Enligt den svenska rättegångsbalken ’bör utredningen bedrivas så att ingen person i onödan utsätts för misstanke eller för onödiga kostnader eller besvär’ (kapitel 23, paragraf 4) och det råder ingen tvekan om att en stor del av både svenska och brittiska skattebetalares pengar har gått till spillo i dividerandet om denna utlämning i domstol, när mycket enklare metoder skulle kunna ha använts för att förhöra Julian Assange. Kan du förklara de mekanismer genom vilka England ersätts för sina kostnader när dom representerar den svenska åklagarmyndigheten i de brittiska domstolarna? Likaså vilka vägar står öppna för Mr Assange att söka ersättning för sina stora personliga rättegångskostnader, i sin kamp mot detta missbruk av den europeiska arresteringsorder processen?
Med vänlig hälsning
John Goss, Birmingham, UK”
I included details of the Expressen article not to criticise the Prosecutor General so much as to awaken Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg and Steve McCabe (all of whom were copied in) to the fact that we know what is going on.
Arbed, I’ve done it and when moderated it will appear. As you say cut and paste and put your name and nationality in the appropriate places. I added comments of my own.
Nevermind, it’s on my blog.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/open-letter-to-swedish-prosecutor.html
@ John Goss 10.44am
Are you signed up to MediaLens? (I’m not, unfortunately). I was wondering if you could cross-post it there? Letter-writing and emails are a specialty of their Alerts, it seems to me.
Thanks john and Arbed, Rico et al.
@ Mary. The two gentlemen arrested and interviewed had to be released for lack of evidence. As yet nothing new has emerged from the murder near Sandringham Palace.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk_detective_s_plea_for_information_over_alisa_death_after_it_emerges_no_further_action_to_be_taken_against_two_men_arrested_1_1528863
Arbed I am not signed up to Medialens either but I have sent an email to one of the editors there containing a link.
Sounds good, John!
So, now I’m getting in competitive mood, I’ve just emailed it to Mark Weisbrot at Just Foreign Policy – they do regular petition/open letters on the Bradley Manning and Assange cases.
I’ll take your media watchdog cross-posting and raise you one… 😉
Your a star, Arbed. Keep up the good work. Julian Assange will be out of the Ecuadorian Embassy within 12 months and a free man. They cannot keep up thier charade forever.
“their” that is. Pity you can’t edit once you’ve commented.
Well done John for your letter to Sweden. I have just bought a few lengths of planed Swedish timber boards and thought how smooth and beautiful they are and sweet smelling, so unlike the Swedish legal system in this case.
and thanks for that Sandringham update Nevermind. Something stinks.
Julian Assange speaks to the UN tonight 23.30 our time and Hague is meeting the Foreign Minister from Ecuador. So it says here.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1348645457.html
I’ll start again. “You’re a star, Arbed”.
Thanks Mary. I’ve got a feeling the Assange battle is one we are going to win with persistence.
Anyone writing a letter to Mr. Assange asking why he fled Sweden, skipped bail after exhausting his legal avenues, and seems intent on destroying wikileaks reputation along with his own? No, thought not. Any responsible leader of an idealistic organisation like wikileaks would have stood down from their position until the allegations were settled by due process, but not Our Hero he’s above all that sort of stuff, better to blur the lines between yourself and wikileaks and use it as a form of shield against personal allegations that have nothing to do with it.
It is extremely unfortunate that this case has been politicised, but the man primarily responsible for that is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
CE 1.50pm – [translation] Does my butt look hurt in this comment?
CE, again, I’ve responded to your “Our Hero” snideness before, but you keep bringing it up. For the record: there are people who are uncritical of Assange no matter what, there are people who are open minded but demand due legal process in public, and there are people who are critical of Assange no matter what. I am in the middle category, for what it is worth.
I see no blurring of lines between Assange and Wikileaks in this case, but you appear to be wishing that were true, so you had more mud to throw. Wikileaks is continuing its work without him, and I think will forgo any public figure. Dealt with this issue before in the comments too.
Yes Jon, I know you are middle category and have been consistently fair minded and reasonable on this matter but it seems like you are in a minority, and with a touch of self awareness I am probably in the category that is over critical of JA, due to my distaste for some of his actions. But you’d have to be blind not to see some the myopic hero worship that some indulge in. You are right it is snide to consistently use the Our Hero tag and I will refrain from now on, let’s hope some of those smearing SW and the Swedish legal process do the same.
I wish I could agree with you the blurring of the lines, but I thing JA could have been a lot more proactive separating himself from Wikileaks when the brown stuff started to hit the fan.
CE 2.15pm
Ok, and sorry for my snideness above – a bit uncalled for, I admit – but I’d just like to make it clear that I would be doing EXACTLY as I am now if I ever came across another case like this one, the Swedish investigation/ extradition of Assange.
You assume that people like me cannot separate our support of the Wikileaks project from the man who heads it, but that is not so in my case. I am doing what I am doing now because I believe in justice. Period. It is the blatancy of the very obvious miscarriage of justice in this Assange case which matters to me, and that would apply equally if the same thing was happening to Joe Normal of Normal Town, UK as far as I am concerned.
You forget what I said in one of my first posts here: I initially took an interest in this case because I was a rape victim who became interested in how the crime of rape is prosecuted generally because of my own personal experience.
Repeat: I believe in justice. THAT’S my motivation.
John Goss,
The Flashback site is the most popular source of anonymous whistle blowing in Sweden. The Flashback people are not happy with Goran Rudling for not giving due credit to where the source first emerged.
Gorans site in Sweden would most probably be receiving substantial state funds for social work to the benefit of society, like giving info to victims of rape and the public etc. I am not sure if he falls into this category but it can be checked out. This could explain his “bitter sweet” relationship with the Assange case. The media in Sweden and literally all of them receive state grants to survive, hence their position on the Assange case- “You cant bite the hand that feeds you.” The Assange case also gives Rudling work ethic credibility and draws unique viewers to his site which adds to more money from the state.
I will not attend the seminar today. Their are NO decision making people on the panel and I have no time to dilly dally. I am a businessman and not a typical social activist or pro wikileaks man but understand Sweden and its contradictions having lived here for decades. I think it is morally digusting when NO one is made to account for rendition flights from a so called neutral liberal democratic state. We are living in a changing world where the Latin Americans (ALBA countries) are bring about democratic order against economic exploitation and racism. Countries like Sweden are hell bent on keeping the status quo. This is the reason why Assange is being squeazed.
Arbed,
Fair enough and I apologise for my snide generalisation. I’m glad you are treating this case like any other, but again I suggest you are in a minority. I’m grateful for your research and that of GR, my knowledge of this case and the arguments around it has expanded exponentially since visiting this site. However I still think you are misguided in certain areas and if both sides of the argument can provide corrections surely that is a step towards Truth and Justice that you desire? Yet as soon as discrepancies are pointed out in JA’s story the normal reply is a volley of abuse and heads stuck in the sand.
Hi CE, which particular correction/s is it you require? I do know this case very well, so perhaps I can help?
@Arbed, “I believe in justice. THAT’S my motivation.”
I second that, emphatically!
@ Rico, “I think it is morally disgusting … We are living in a changing world … where the Latin Americans (ALBA countries) are bring about democratic order against economic exploitation and racism.”
Yes it is, and if you close your eyes you can almost, on the very edge of hearing, softly perceive Cate Blanchett’s beginning lines from The Lord of The Rings films,
“The world is changing, I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air…”
Quirky remarks on the side, it is saddening, if not unexpected.
I read a comment a while back, that defined Sweden today as a “twilight” country, a county that has gone past it economical/cultural/ethical peak, and now is in a state of decline.
And I do wonder if that is not an essential part of the engine that continuously generates, and sustain many of the growing and ever widening paradoxes and blatant hypocrisy, that are so rife under the surface in the Swedish society today.
All the hype aside, I strongly believe that we are very vulnerable economical, and with a very USA friendly government in charge, negligible or allayed journalistic scrutiny, Sweden does not today have either the will nor the courage to stand up to any “requests” for cooperation.
We are so afraid of losing some of what we do have, not least our image of economical and social pre eminence, that “we” are willing to sacrifice our moral and ethical integrity for it.
That is a lot of speculation of course, but I do think there are many signs that Swedish politicians are under considerate pressure, and for whatever reasons, it is curious to contemplate, and possibly relevant in regard to the discussion in what manner this might play out, I believe.
Rico Santan, thank you very much for helpful information it would otherwise be difficult to get without living in Sweden and knowing the language. We are indebted to you. And thank you too for the courteous way in which you couch your facts. A good few who comment here are confrontational.
We are definitely living in a changing world, and it is not changing for the better. As you can see the UK media has been gagged from speaking about this case in any depth. Assange’s name is usually mentioned in the same sentence as the word rape. Even my MP tweeted “Rape is a serious charge & I think Mr Assange should be extradited but consider what might happen if we start invading foreign embassies”. I tried to take him to task over this since he assumed, as many more do from the brainwashing that JA had committed rape. He did not respond.
As Mary mentioned (at 12.45 p.m.) Julian Assange and the Ecuadorian foreign minister are addressing the UN tonight. I quite warmed to the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Ricardo Patino. In this interview with Al Jazeera he explains why his embassy granted Julian Assange asylum. He also mentions how talks broke down after threats were made to the wellbeing of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and he answered questions on why Ecuador had stopped the privately-owned media outlets from spreading lies. I just wish somebody could do something in the UK where the problem is undoubtedly worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUo56xAbTQ0&feature=g-all-u
Well wishes for tomorrow in your aiding and abetting Julien Assange. You have spoilt the game for mi5 though, telling them beforehand. They just love the chase.
No, Mrs. Romney, hard is not having enough money to feed your kids.
Hard is working 80 hours per week and still not making it.
Hard is watching your wife suffer with cancer, and not having access to good medical care.
Hard is going to bed every night wondering if you will be killed by a US drone.
Hard is being an 18 year-old boy with no front teeth – no dental care – and trying to get hired for a job.
Hard is missing your father’s funeral because your boss won’t give you the time off.
Hard is being a little kid working in a toxic farm field.
Hard is being in prison – tortured because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hard is being Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, or Lynne Stewart.
Hard is living in a country that has no nuclear capability. Those are the ones on the list for US military intervention.
Hard is being stared at because you are homeless.
Hard is living in a country that is being occupied by US Military Force.
Hard is being an unarmed man assassinated in his own bedroom.
Hard is being the mother of the little boy who died from a tooth abscess because his Mom did not have money for a dentist.
Hard is knowing that no one in power is on your side.
Hard is always being on the wrong side of the desk.
Hard is knowing that things will never get better.
From What’s Hard
by Rosemarie Jackowski / September 26th, 2012
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/09/hard-is/
@CE, thanks.
In relation to a greater separation with Wikileaks, I somewhat agree with you. It is clear to me that Wikileaks is (a) worth protecting, and (b) bigger than Assange. There are a whole bunch of people calling for Assange to step down primarily in order to hurt Wikileaks of course, but I am not sure it would in any case. There are a lot of high quality ethical hackers out there who would be willing to help.
To be clear: I think Assange’s input was critical to the development of WL. I don’t think it is a PR disaster for WL if he does not stand down as chief spokesperson temporarily, but it would certainly be a magnanimous gesture on Assange’s part.
This seems the best place to draw attention to the defence of whistleblowers in a Radio 4 programme by Margaret Heffernan at 20.45 on 26 Septemberin the Four Thoughts series [a pun that encourages me to look forward to Four Play].
Hi Arbed,
You said earlier;
Thank you for asking about the “specialty” issue. This is included in Section 58 of the 2003 Extradition Act (the legislation on which British extraditions under the EAW is based). Specialty does, as you point out, mean that someone can only be extradited for one crime, and therefore cannot be onward-extradited for something else entirely. All well and good.
Except…
Theresa May (or whoever the Home Secretary is) can waive specialty under Section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003 and her decision is not necessarily subject to judicial review.
Sorry CE – just for clarity, I am, of course, talking about extradition to the US via Sweden and you are talking about extradition direct to the US from the UK (which is not what’s happening). My belief is that the US request for extradition – from Sweden, but to which the UK’s Section 58 Specialty doctrine/UK consent would apply – are likely to be of the “unauthorised access to government computer systems”/”theft of documents” (ie criminal as opposed to political) variety in order not to run into any bars in either Sweden’s or the UK’s legislation against extradition on political/death penalty charges.
This would avoid there being any backlash at all if Theresa May was to waive Section 58 specialty/consent to onward extradition, Sweden to US.
———————————————————————————
I agree with you that in the unlikely event of of JA being extradited it would likely be for criminal charges.
But does the presence of Section 58, the US Supreme Court’s Speciality Doctrine, and it’s declaration that “an accused shall not be arrested or tried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings”, not contradict your earlier bold assertion that JA would face additional charges after extradition resulting in the death penalty, and that his legal situation was exactly the same as Bradley Manning’s?
Hi CE (10.04pm)
Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. YVMV, but to me the key sentence was in your first post on the subject – “Although the speciality principle was not specifically enumerated in the treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that…”.
Supreme Courts can be very malleable beasts, particularly where points of law are not “specifically enumerated”. Indeed, our own Supreme Court’s decision in the Assange case showed marked elements of such flexibility, ruling as they did on an obscure clause of the Vienna Convention when neither prosecution or defence had rehearsed any argument on it at all during the hearing (or indeed in the three submissions the Court asked both sides for after that). And I think in some ways the US judiciary is even less independent of the executive than our own.
So, although I know you’ll likely disagree with me, my view:
They’ll find a way around it.
By the way, news just in. Have you seen this?
US calls Assange “enemy of state”:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html
CE 10.04pm
The other argument they could try was that “specialty” had ALREADY been waived – by the UK when giving its consent to the onward extradition from Sweden. See?
The US DoJ has had nigh on two years – no, gosh, almost exactly two years – since the Grand Jury was set up to work out how it’s going to play this one.