Aug 24, 2012

Swedish Q&A: do Assange’s claims on extradition stack up?

Claims that it would be easier for the US to extradite Julian Assange from Sweden than from the UK don't stack up. Swedish legal academic Mark Klamberg explains why.

Cathy Alexander — Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

Cathy Alexander

Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

There’s been plenty of commentary in Australia and the UK about the likelihood and legality of Sweden extraditing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US, should it secure his extradition from the UK for questioning on s-xual misconduct allegations. So what do the Swedes say? Crikey puts some questions to Mark Klamberg, doctor in public international law at Stockholm University …

Why can’t Swedish authorities go to London to question Assange?

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

29 thoughts on “Swedish Q&A: do Assange’s claims on extradition stack up?

  1. Liz45

    I still wouldn’t like to take the risk if I was Julian Assange! His legal team who are more in tune with things? than I am obviously think so too! Geoffrey Robertson is a Human Rights Lawyer, where I’m not even a lawyer of any kind. The Spanish barrister is also more experienced too. I’d go with their advice. The past history of the US re renditions etc is pretty strong. They seem to get their way too often! They could again! Wouldn’t be the first time they’ve ‘leaned’ on people from other governments. Why stop now?

  2. zut alors

    A most informative piece. More of this type of journalism please, Crikey.

  3. muruk

    If what Mark Klamberg says is true, then Julian Assange has nothing to fear from the US, via Sweden, and my faith in Swedish justice has been restored. But it could well be pro-government spin designed to fool and then entrap Julian Assange. I doubt there is anywhere on this earth today where any government deserves to be trusted, even one with a prior history of excellence in human rights. On balance, regardless of what Mark Klamberg has said and the truth of it, Julian Assange is better off treating it as a ploy to entrap him.

  4. Guy Rundle

    A pretty establishment view of the issue, presented there, by an impeccably credentialled member of the Swedish establishment. A few issues:

    1) No-one has suggested that it would be easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK, per se. But if Assange had not been pinged with an arrest warrant by the Swedes, he would be free to move around the world to a place of greater safety from the US. Since Sweden tends to hold those being questioned for felonies – with a view to indictment – on remand, the combination of that, and the ‘temporary surrender’ provisions, make for a pretty effective trap.

    2) Klamberg’s portrayal of the reaction to rendition of Swedish citizens in 2001 is a bit of Swedish self-flattery. But if he’s going to raise it, why not mention that the justice minister who authorised it, Tomas Bodstrom, is now the law partner of Claes Borgstrom, who is now representing the two women on whose behalf the prosecutors are pursuing Assange. Is it not also worth mentioning that Borgstrom (and Bodstrom) only became involved when the case was thrown out by Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finne, and was appealed to another prosecutor?

    3) Klamberg’s portrayal of Swedish-US relations is also disingenuous. Yes, Sweden was a major moral voice in many circumstances up to the 1980s. But that was under left social democratic governments. A thoroughly pro-american right wing government is now in power, and the right within the opposition social democratic party is now eager to end Sweden’s official neutrality. Sweden is part of the coalition of forces in Afghanistan, and has a great desire for intelligence sharing with the US – which gthe US has previously threatened to withdraw if Assange and Wikileaks were granted journalistic protection in the country.

    4) the fact that extradition from a Swedish cell to a US one would require the permission of the UK home secretary is irrelevant. It is clear that this would be easily given by home secretaries of the both major parties.

    5) Philip Dorling’s recent report on the Australian government’s knowledge of US intent to get Assange shows that the US is considering charges of computer fraud – which would satisfy the conditions of a non-political crime. Other charges could be added. The death penalty may well be taken off the table but a) a federal government can never guarantee a court sentence – three Mexican citizens have been executed so far despite govt guarantees that no execution would take place, and b) the threat of a forty year jail sentence in a ‘supermax’ prison with permanent solitary confinement is akin to a death sentence as a strategy to terrify.

    In general, if you want to know how Sweden works, the last person to ask is a Swede, especially someone at the centre of the duckpond…..

  5. wmmbb

    The Swedes might consider acting in the interest of justice. Both “victims” and “suspect” are entitled to a speedy trial. The “suspect” could have been prevented in September 2010 from leaving Sweden.It is not clear why “coercive measures” would be required in questioning the suspect, or indeed if such questioning is a precondition to charging the suspect, as it might be, then why it would be necessary to cross check with the victims before laying charges. Furthermore, since extradition is a decision to be made by the government, given the context created by the grant of political asylum, why a guarantee can not be given in this instance to serve the greater purposes. The fact that this has no happened inclines toward the conspiracy theory as the more cogent explanation.

  6. Liz45

    @GUY – I’ve read similar information to what you’ve posted here Guy. As I said earlier, if I was Julian Assange I wouldn’t take the risk?

    Perhaps you know why other media outlets who also printed or shown Wikileaks information/videos etc haven’t even been mentioned? Is it because they have too much power? Or being in the US they’d plead freedom of speech etc? What’s different about this situation and that of Daniel Elsberg for instance? I’m intrigued why the Australian Govt hasn’t even ‘slapped’ Australian media outlets for printing said information?

  7. Michael Fink

    Great article, and a fascinating response from Rundle. Journalism and discussion like this is why I recently subscribed for another two years.

  8. Mike Smith

    It sounds reasonable. But were I Sweden’s legal team, I’d take the pragmatic approach, do the interviews in the Ecuador embassy in the UK and take it from there. Given the publicity, don’t even try doing it in-camera.

    Very good interview/article, by the way.

  9. puddleduck

    Interesting piece – and thanks Crikey for Guy’s response. I was hoping for it, even as I read through.

    Unlike Muruk, my “faith in Swedish justice” has not been restored. First, because as Guy says, it’s a very establishment view, based on everyone behaving well and politics having little sway, when we know this is a very political case. Second, the piece says nothing about the operation of the Swedish domestic legal system, pursuant to which Assange would be imprisoned for questioning.

    The writers state that “Assange has been given several legal remedies and guarantees in Sweden and the UK, which he has used.” What legal remedies and guarantees has Assange had access to in Sweden? As far as I know, he’s been treated very shabbily in Sweden, for example when his name was leaked to the press. He’s been cooperative to a fault.

    Nice try, Sweden, but we ain’t buying.

  10. kennethrobinson2

    The most dangerous country for Assange, would be Australia, our mob would even “DELIVER” him

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details