Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton’s Worst Nightmare in 2016

[AntiBank]

146. you are just flat out wrong (and you do not understand our government and judicial system here)

Here is an English article that debunks your claim entirely


The claim that Swedish courts, not government, have final say on extradition is a crucial mistake that distorts the Assange case


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

The falsehood here is clear and straightforward. One of the "myths" Green purported to debunk was that "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA." Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.

But Green claimed that "It 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." He said that this is so in part because "any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'." He then cited a British lawyer (notably, not a Swedish one) who made the same claim:

"It appears that if the extradition is contested as it would be in Assange's case then it is a matter for the court not the government to decide if he is extradited."

This is completely and unquestionably false. It is simply untrue that it is Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, who are the final decision-makers in extradition requests. It is equally untrue that the Swedish government has no final decision-making power regarding extradition requests that are legally sanctioned by the Swedish judiciary. These are not matters for reasonable debate. The law is clear. Green's claim is false.


Last night, international law professor Kevin Jon Heller at Melbourne Law School emailed me and wrote:

"It is incorrect to say that the final decision to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US would be made by the courts."

He directed me to this analysis from Mark Klamberg – a professor of international law at the University of Stockholm – who dissects Sweden's extradition law and makes Green's error as clear as it can be [my emphasis]:

"How does procedure work if somebody is to extradited from Sweden? … If the person referred to in the request has not consented to being extradited, the case shall be tried by the supreme court. Section 20(1) provides that if the supreme court has considered that there is a legal obstacle to extradition the request may not be granted.

"Even if the supreme court has found that there are no obstacles, the government can refuse extradition. This is because section 1(1) provides that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person 'may' not 'shall' be extradited. In other words, even if the prosecutor-general and the supreme court finds that all conditions for extradition are fulfilled the government may veto such extradition. It does not work in the reverse way, the government can not grant extradition if the supreme court has found that any of the required conditions are lacking."

Let's repeat that: "Even if the supreme court has found that there are no obstacles, the government can refuse extradition." And: "Even if the prosecutor-general and the supreme court finds that all conditions for extradition are fulfilled the government may veto such extradition." In other words, under clear Swedish law, the Swedish government has exactly the final decision-making authority over extradition that Green told his readers it lacks.


Professor Klamberg is far from alone in making this clear. As I noted on Wednesday, this Swedish-Moroccon lawyer analyzed Swedish extradition law in rigorous detail to make the same point:

"Swedish extradition law clearly states that the Swedish government is the body deciding on any extradition request."

Moreover:

"No provision gives any court the right to decide on an extraditions request."



snip



also see

Extradition for Criminal Offences (this IS from our government, orginal sourced Swedish Law)

http://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/


Procedure

Any state that desires the extradition of a person must make a request for extradition to the Central Authority, enclosing the report of the investigation on which the application request is based.

The Central Authority scrutinises the request to see if there is obvious reason why it should not be approved; if this is the case, the Government shall reject the request without delay. Otherwise the request is forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor-General, which is required to determine whether the conditions for extradition laid down by law are met in this particular case. The actual investigation of the case follows the rules for preliminary investigations and is conducted by the regional or local public prosecution office in which district the person who is sought for extradition lives. If the person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law. The Supreme Court then delivers its opinion to the Government for use in its examination of the case. If the person involved does not oppose to extradition, the report from the investigation is instead delivered directly from the Prosecutor-General to the Government, which then makes its decision. If the request is approved, a date is set by which the person must be surrendered to the requesting state. With the assistance of Interpol, the police authority concerned determines a time and place for surrendering the person to the other state.

If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited.


snip


Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the U.S. – Analysis

The Indicter, Vol 2, Nr 31, 20 February 2016

By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD.

Chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and of The Indicter’s Editorial board.

http://theindicter.com/swedens-argument-for-refusing-to-issue-non-extradition-guarantees-to-mr-assange-is-fallacious-and-hides-real-commitment-to-the-u-s-analysis/


snip

It would be highly appropriate that the Swedish government declares whether they consider Assange a terrorist or not. This is essential for the debate, because top US-govt officials and politicians have already labelled Assange as ‘terrorist’. In this meaning, the extradition request from the part of the U.S. government could be by arguing Assange is indicted on terrorist activities.

Following Judge argumentation, an extradition processed in Sweden under the terrorist legislation does give the government extraordinary powers, meaning, it does not need to submit the case for consideration by the Court. In other words, this crime-categorization would even make the process quicker and less complicated in Sweden.

In the context, there is a very aggravating accusation against Julian Assange which equalizes with the American “cyber terrorist” charges. It was put forward directly by the Swedish military. Assange was accused during a main TV news program ‘Rapport’, broadcasted by the Swedish state TV, of being “blackmailing Sweden” See details on this preposterous accusation on straightforward criminal behaviour, such as blackmailing the Nation of Sweden, in my post “Sweden’s FOI publicly slandering Assange & WikiLeaks while in secret help building missile factory for Saudi Arabia dictatorship“. And who is the accusation-messenger Mr Mike Winnerstig? A reserve-army officer and member of the Swedish Military Academy, was at the time Deputy Director of the Military Research Institute FOA (under the Ministry of Defence). He has participated as lecturer in events sponsored by NATO and the US Embassy in Sweden, and a strong lobbyist for Sweden’s entrance to NATO.


Why the ‘impossibility of non-extradition guarantees’ is a fake?

Simply, because the government of Sweden has the legal possibility of vetoing any court decision, any police authority decision, any immigration authority decision on issues of deportation, extradition or rendition. Period.

I have already clarified in page 18 of my book (2016) “Sweden VS Assange. HR issues & Political Backgrund”: [14]

“At the contrary of what is stated by Swedish sources, it is the Swedish government –and not the judicial system – which ultimately can decide the issue of extradition to a third country. The government is fully entitled to issue guarantees of a non-extradition.”