It's All About Greenwald

[struggle4progress]

24. This became clear to me when I tried to check Greenwald's claims about Swedish extradition law

David Allen Green, at the New Statesman -- where the editor Jemima Khan had put of some of Assange's bail money -- wrote two quite informative columns Legal myths about the Assange extradition and The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange

Mr Greenwald disliked Mr Green's claims in the first column and wrote a response

The New Statesman must correct its error over Assange and extradition
... Green claimed that "<i>t would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request" ...This is completely and unquestionably false ... Mark Klamberg – a professor of international law at the University of Stockholm – ... dissects Sweden's extradition law and makes Green's error as clear as it can be ...

Klamberg then tweets:
@ggreenwald is only qouting half of my statement and distorts my conclusion http://gu.com/p/3ax4a/tw @davidallengreen
https://twitter.com/Klamberg/status/239028648424898560

Klamberg then followed up with a lengthy blog post:

Sequencing and the discretion of the Government in Extradition cases
The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.

At the time I looked into this, a number of tweets and emails were available by web-search, between various persons involved in this exchange, but it was not easy to sort it all out: Greenwald IMO has a habit of selectively quoting people out of context and then aggressively denying that he misrepresented what they were saying. I've just posting here enough of what I can easily reconstruct to show that Greenwald (1) misrepresented Klamberg's views and (2) knew soon after that Klamberg complained Greenwald misrepresented Klamberg's views (see the tweet page above) -- and as far as I can tell, Greenwald never admitted anywhere that he had misrepresented Klamberg's views