



EXTRADITING ASSANGE

This document provides the facts about Julian Assange's situation. Mainstream reportage on Assange's case is of a poor quality, with the result that many members of the public are misinformed on the most basic facts about his legal and factual situation. This document aims to remedy this situation.



This document provides comprehensively cited information about why Julian Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador, and about the sequence of events leading up to that point.



The document also considers the most frequent false or misleading claims made in the media and demonstrates how they are incorrect. Reference is made to all of the necessary documentary evidence and each quotation links to the original source, so that readers can follow up and ascertain for themselves the truth of the matter.



ABBREVIATIONS

EAW

The European Arrest Warrant

The paper form, a few pages long, that the Swedish prosecutor filled out to seek Julian Assange's extradition.

AA

The older woman, 31, in the Swedish case; a politician in the Social Democratic Party

SW

The younger woman, 26, in the Swedish case.

DFAT

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade





[T]he Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defence of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity.

[SOURCE]



HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

From the WIKILEAKS TWEET ARCHIVE

March 2010



WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org

[SOURCE]

Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to http://skup.no on Thursday.

[SOURCE]

We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.

[SOURCE]

Iceland summons top US diplomat over WikiLeaks dust-up | AFP http://bit.ly/ddOmTK

[SOURCE]

[SOURCE]



Although outsiders have not been allowed to inspect the “war room” in suburban Virginia and see its staff at work, national-security officials offered details of the operation to The Daily Beast, including the identity of the counterintelligence expert who has been put in charge: Brig. General Robert A. Carr of the Defense Intelligence Agency.



Officials say Carr, handpicked for the assignment by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is highly respected among his colleagues at DIA, the Pentagon’s equivalent of the CIA, and a fitting adversary to Assange , the nomadic Australian-born computer hacker who founded WikiLeaks and is now believed to be in Sweden.



“I wouldn’t want to go up against General Carr,” a Pentagon official said. “Very smart guy.” Carr served in Afghanistan for much of last year before his transfer to the DIA in Washington, where he runs the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center. In his battle against Assange , officials say, Carr’s central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.



The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

[SOURCE]



If doing the right thing is not good enough for them then we will figure out what alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing.

[SOURCE] [VIDEO]



The seriously-ill British mother of the young American military intelligence officer at the centre of the investigation into leaks of classified Afghan war documents was left ‘severely distressed’ after FBI agents turned up unannounced at her home in Wales.



Susan Manning, whose son Bradley has been charged with leaking defence secrets that appeared on the controversial WikiLeaks website, was questioned by two FBI officers believed to be attached to the US embassy in London.

[SOURCE]



You asked how I came to know [AA] [Political Secretary and Press Officer of the Brotherhood Movement]. In order to come here to Sweden it was necessary for me to obtain diplomatic support in order to get out of England. On account of the security situation between my organization and the Pentagon. Political contacts in Sweden therefore suggested that I should be invited by the Christian Social Democrats to give a talk, and a formal invitation was to be sent to (inaudible) and England, so that I should have a safe journey here. From England. And I understood that [AA] was Press Officer of the Brotherhood Movement within the Christian Social Democrats.

[SOURCE]



I only visited Sweden because the FBI came to the UK and raided one of my alleged source's mother's house, Bradley Manning, in Wales. So the FBI was here in the UK, stomping around the UK, and we thought I'd better get out. And I managed to get some people to write an invite to a talk on the first casualty of... Sorry, the first casualty of the war is the truth, in Sweden, and use that invite as sort-of a safe passage to get out through UK customs to Sweden.

[SOURCE]



[J]ust at the point of arrival I received some news from one of our contacts in a Western intelligence agency, confirming what had already been hinted at by the Pentagon press office. The word was that the US government acknowledged privately that I would be difficult to prosecute but were already talking about 'dealing with you illegally,' as my source put it. The source specified what that would mean: gaining evidence about what we had in the way of information; unearthing, by whatever means, some sort of link between Private Manning and WikiLeaks; and if all else failed, deploying other illegal means, such as planting drugs on me, 'finding' child pornography on my hardware, or seeking to embroil me in allegations of immoral conduct.



The message was that I would not be threatened physically. I told Frank Rieger, a supporter in Berlin who is the chief technology officer at CryptoPhone, a company that makes telephones for encrypted secure communication, and he said he would prepare a press release making this information public. He then did so, and I had it with me on a laptop ready to edit it. The intention was to get it out as soon as possible, as it did no good to put these things out after some damage had been done, or material had been planted. It remains one of my regrets that I didn't turn to it immediately. The same day, my Australian bank card suddenly stopped working.

The Unauthorized Autobiography, p.228







4. During his visit he had sexual intercourse with two women [AA and SW]. After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they had both had intercourse with the Appellant during the currency of his visit in circumstances where respectively they had or might have been or become unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted the Appellant to get tested for disease. On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support. The police treated their visit as the filing of formal reports for rape of SW and molestation of AA.

[SOURCE]

COMPLAINANT REPORT OF [SW]

(as written by police interviewer Irmeli Krans)



During the course of the interrogation I and [SW] were informed that Julian Assange had been detained in his absence. After this information [SW] had difficulty in concentrating on the interrogation, for which reason I judged that it was best to discontinue the interrogation... The interrogation has not been read aloud or read through for approval but [SW] was informed that she has the possibility of doing this on a later occasion.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

WITNESS REPORT OF [JW1]

Yes, I phoned her [AA] the same day, immediately after talking to Donald. But this call was very short, she was just about to go out to meet [SW] to go and consult with the police. But what emerged from this conversation was, although perhaps I misunderstood it, what came out from this conversation was that it wasn’t what Donald had said previously. It’s actually something I had forgotten, it was quite simply that Sofia wanted to force Julian to take a blood test. Not to report a rape allegation. And that’s what came out of this conversation.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

WITNESS REPORT OF [MT] [MT] wanted to say that when [SW] was at the hospital and went to the police it was not what [SW] wanted to do. She just wanted Julian to be tested. She felt that she had been railroaded by the police and others around her.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

WITNESS REPORT OF [JW2]

[SW] had later said that she did not want to report Julian but just wanted him to be tested for diseases. She had gone to the police in order to get advice and the police had then made a report.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

WITNESS REPORT OF [DB]

[AA] said that "[SW] has asked me [AA] to go to the police," - to go with her - "and I have decided to go with her and support her in this. But we do not intend to report Julian, we will just go there and explain".

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

[AA] states that she had consented to have sex with Assange, but that she would not have done so if she had known that he was not wearing a condom. [AA] has contacted the health centre and been given a time for testing next week. [AA] consents to the police acquiring medical background.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]





It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.

[SOURCE]

7. A preliminary investigation was commenced and both women were interviewed (SW on 20th August, and AA on 21st August). At the conclusion of those interviews, on 21st August 2010, the case was taken over by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Having assessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against the Appellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against SW).



8. The preliminary investigation continued in respect of:

i. Whether the conduct alleged by SW could constitute some lesser offence,

ii. Whether the conduct alleged by AA could constitute 'molestation'.

9. On 25th (sometimes erroneously referred to as 23rd) August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor determined that:

i. The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed.

ii. The preliminary investigation into the conduct alleged by AA would continue (on suspicion of the offence of 'molestation' only).

[SOURCE]





10. On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation, attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA's report. He answered all questions asked of him.

[SOURCE]

The interrogator [Irmeli Krans] and the woman [AA] who reported Julian Assange were in touch with one another as far back as April 2009 - 16 months before Julian Assange was reported to the police for rape, among other things... Expressen can today reveal that there really were political and personal connections between one of the women who reported [Julian Assange] and the interrogator ... The interrogator and the woman who reported Julian Assange got to know one another because both are involved with the Social Democrat Party. Despite participating in the criminal investigation of Assange, the interrogator made very negative comments about the WikiLeaks’ founder on her Facebook page... In their blogs, the interrogator and the woman who reported Julian Assange have been open with their friendship... the interrogator and the woman corresponded openly with one another on the Internet 16 months before Assange came to Sweden , invited by the woman, who subsequently reported him [to the police] [...]



16 months later the policewoman played an important role as interrogator in the Assange investigation, when the WikiLeaks’ founder was first sought for arrest on suspicion of rape. The policewoman realised immediately that her friend and party comrade was one of the complainants - but she made the interrogation nevertheless. She commenced the interrogation at 4.21pm without declaring a conflict of interest.

[SOURCE]





"Well Jesus Christ!!! The scandal in every newspaper and news bulletin. But our dear eminent and uniquely competent Claes Borgström will hopefully bring some order!"

[SOURCE]

11. Meanwhile, on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor's decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Göteborg.

[SOURCE]



Marianne Ny, unlike other prosecutors, has made various statements [...] in which she regards the prosecution of men, even without sufficient evidence, as in the public interest ’pour decourager les autres’ . She is a high profile prosecutor who is also a crusader on gender issues and the international attention that this case has received may have made her intransigent and, in my view, overly harsh and disproportionate ...

[SOURCE]



Note on date and time of document



On Friday, 20 August 2010. I conducted an interview with complainant SW in connection with case #0201-K246314-10 at Klara Police Station. The interview commenced at 4:21 p.m. and was terminated at 6:40 p.m. The interview [protocol] was thereafter written with the word-processing program in the DurTvå computer system. The interview was to be copyedited on my next workday, Monday the 23rd of August 2010. That was not possible because I was denied access to the interview I had conducted. After an exchange of e-mails, I was directed by supervisor Mats Gehlin to instead create and sign a new interview in DurTvå, which was done on 26 August with the necessary changes. Unfortunately, the date and time of that document conforms with the time that the changes were made, as that is done automatically by the DurTvå system.

[SOURCE] [SWEDISH]

With the risk of appearing difficult I do not want to have an unsigned document with my name circulating in DurTvå [the police’s computer system] space. Particularly not now when the case has developed as it has.

[SOURCE]



11. Meanwhile, on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor's decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Göteborg. On 1st September 2010, that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that:

i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10 [SW] would be resumed, under the offence of 'rape'.



ii. The preliminary investigation into K246336-10 [AA] would be expanded to include all the conduct in the complaint.

[SOURCE]

Interviewer: But [the complainant] did not at first say that she had been raped.



Borgström: Yes, but she is not a lawyer.



[SOURCE]



Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny, with special assignment of developing investigation methodology as regards sex crime cases, has stated that the case can take a long time, perhaps months. This is extraordinary considering that in March this year, in an interview with Dagens Nyheter, she emphasised the importance of dealing with sex crime cases speedily. In the Assange case this methodology clearly does not apply. “Everyone understands the consequences for a person who is subjected to such suspicions as Assange is. For a prosecutor to publicly express suspicion and then subsequently appear to neglect investigating the suspicion quickly, this must conflict with basic legal principles. [...]



The Assange case should make alarm bells ring. Is there an attitude about this type of case that leads to basic principles of the rule of law being set aside? Speedy investigation of this case should be easy. In all likelihood it is just a matter of interviewing the parties, inspecting e-mail conversations and similar. Perhaps a few hours’ work. Interrogations should of course be held as soon as possible because memory can be influenced and change. Especially when the interrogation transcripts are published in the evening papers. “Assange has been hung out as a suspected rapist and is damaged by it. However, that particular aspect does not appear to worry Marianne Ny.”

[SOURCE]

13. On 14th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant's counsel that he was free to leave Sweden . She advised him that investigations were ongoing. The Appellant's counsel asked whether the interrogation could take place in the next few days but was told it could not because the investigator was ill.

[SOURCE]

Assange's discussion on the phone (which happened in my presence): "They could not do this before? I have been in Sweden for six weeks. " In the journey to Berlin, Assange took four computers and his own personal baggage. The baggage and three of his computers disappeared, although his was a direct flight. Assange arrived to meet with Espresso in Berlin in the late evening (around 11 pm) without luggage, and with only one computer: a laptop which he never parts from and which travels with him on his shoulders. The episode made Assange suspicious. The three computers were never recovered. Twenty days after these events, WikiLeaks released documents on the war in Iraq (Iraq War Logs). Meanwhile, the Swedish case went on. [SOURCE]

17. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.



18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.



19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant's counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellant's counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010. During the same conversation, the Appellant's counsel offered a telephone interview (telephone interviews with suspects abroad are lawful in Sweden and qualify for the purposes of the Preliminary Investigation). That offer was declined, the prosecutor insisting that the Appellant be interviewed in person in Sweden.



20. At around the same time, the prosecutor stated that, notwithstanding the extant arrest warrant, that the Appellant was 'not a wanted man' and would be able to attend an interview 'discreetly'.



23. On 12th November 2010, the Appellant's counsel invited the prosecution to propose dates for interview and offered, in the alternative, a telephone or video-link interview, or to provide a statement in writing, or to attend an interview in person at the Australian Embassy, all of which are permissible in Sweden, all of which were declined; the prosecutor insisting that the Appellant be interviewed in person in Sweden.



24. The prosecutor decided that it was inappropriate to take the same steps under the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty.

[SOURCE]

25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia upon the prosecutor's assertion of reasonable suspicion of the commission of:

i. In case No. K246314-10 [complainant SW]; the offence of rape.



ii. In case No. K246336-10 [complainant AA]; the offences of

unlawful coercion and two instances of sexual molestation.



26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutor's application for a domestic detention order in absentia.



27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.



28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal (albeit that the rape allegation concerning complainant SW was reduced to 'minor rape').



29. The prosecutor's written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was; '...requesting the arrest of Assange in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation...' .



30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states of the European Union 2002/584/JHA ('the Framework decision' ).



31. The EAW was submitted to the United Kingdom, and received by the Serious Organised Crime Agency ('SOCA' ); an authority designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Part 1 of the 2003 Act (by The Extradition Act 2003 (Part 1 Designated Authorities) Order 2003 (SI 2003 No. 3109) as amended by the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2006 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments to Secondary Legislation) Order 2006 (SI 2006 No. 594)).



32. SOCA declined to certify the EAW because it was not a valid Part 1 Warrant in that it failed to specify the punishability in respect of each offence.



33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused.



34. On 2nd December 2010, a replacement EAW was issued by the prosecutor and again submitted to SOCA. This EAW was issued by Marianne Ny, a Director of Public Prosecutions, as 'issuing judicial authority' and bears the stamp of the Swedish Prosecution Authority. The EAW refers in box (b) to the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal as being the decision on arrest on which it was based. [..]



37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA under s2(7) & (8) of the 2003 Act.



38. The Metropolitan police contacted the Appellant's then lawyers and arranged to arrest him by consent on 7th December 2010, when the Appellant voluntarily surrendered himself for arrest by appointment. A sample of the Appellant's DNA was taken under lawful authority at this time.



39. The 'initial hearing' was conducted at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court pursuant to section 4 of the 2003 Act. The Appellant was initially refused bail on 7th December but was subsequently granted bail subject to conditions by the High Court on 16th December 2010.

[SOURCE]



ASYLUM FROM WHAT?



The claim: "It's not happening."

The right does not have a monopoly on paranoia, as the conspiratorial fantasies of supporters of Julian Assange show. Glenn Greenwald, Glenn Beck's namesake and mirror image on the American left, made it embarrassingly obvious in the Guardian last week that a paranoid "leftist" defence of an alleged rapist was the order of the day. Greenwald argued that Assange was not a coward who dare not face his Swedish accusers but a true dissident, who was camping out in the Ecuadorian embassy because he had a genuine fear of persecution. [SOURCE]

there is also an obvious point to be made. The United States has actually not made an extradition request. Although it is reported that there is a 'Grand Jury' investigation currently proceeding (and even that there is a 'sealed indictment' ), there remains no extradition request. There may never be one.

[SOURCE]



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ,...

[SOURCE]



An indictment is sometimes filed under seal and kept sealed until the defendant appears. The indictment is kept sealed so as to not tip off the defendant. In some districts, indictments are initially sealed as a matter of course. Once the defendant has appeared, the indictment can be unsealed.

[SOURCE]



A grand jury is a panel of citizens brought together to investigate crimes and issue indictments. In their original conception, grand juries were intended to be radically democratic. In England, they served as a buffer between citizens and the monarch and her/his prosecutors. In early America, any citizen could bring an allegation of wrongdoing to the original grand jury and the grand jury could indict on a majority vote.



Modern day grand juries are very different. Today, all cases are brought to a grand jury by a prosecutor. The prosecutor picks the witnesses and asks the questions. Witnesses are not allowed to have a lawyer present. There is no judge present. The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury members be instructed on the law at issue. And, unlike in other juries, grand jury members are not screened for bias.



Since the prosecutor solely orchestrates the proceedings, it is no surprise that grand juries almost always serve as a rubber stamp for prosecution. A former chief judge of New York once famously noted that 'any prosecutor that wanted to could indict a ham sandwich.' In the rare event that a grand jury does not indict, the prosecutor can simply impanel a different grand jury and seek an indictment before a new grand jury.



In political cases, grand juries have been used to execute witch hunts against activists. Prosecutors will bring in activist witnesses and attempt to get them to snitch on other activists with threats of jail time if they refuse to cooperate with the grand jury. It is critical to understand how a grand jury works; what your rights are; what rights you cannot exercise; and how to resist a grand jury.



Many rights we take for granted do not exist for grand jury witnesses. Grand jury witnesses have no right to be represented by an attorney and no right to a jury trial if they are threatened with jail. Grand jury witnesses do retain the right against self-incrimination but can nonetheless be forced to snitch on themselves and others in exchange for immunity from prosecution and punishment. Immunity only protects witnesses; others can still be prosecuted.

[SOURCE]



We have an active, ongoing criminal investigation with regard to this matter. We are not in a position as yet to announce the result of that investigation, but the investigation is ongoing.

[SOURCE]



I will indicate and would emphasize that there is an active ongoing criminal investigation that we are conducting with the Department of Defense... As I said active ongoing investigation. To the extent that we can find anybody involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people who I have described, they will be held responsible. They will be held accountable. To the extent there are gaps in our laws we will move to close those gaps. Which is not to say... which is not to say, that anybody at this point because of their citizenship or their residence is not a target or a subject of an investigation that is ongoing.

[SOURCE]



Federal prosecutors working for MacBride are also handling a critical aspect of the biggest leak case in U.S. history. The investigation is focused on whether the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, violated U.S. laws in posting hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic cables on the group’s Web site and sharing them with mainstream news organizations. [...]



Another factor that draws cases to Alexandria’s courthouse is that trials move fast there. The court is known as the “rocket docket” because its judges follow procedural rules that move cases through much more quickly than other courts, said MacBride, who clerked in the district as a young lawyer. [...]



“Criminals today aren’t confined by borders, and neither are we,” MacBride said. “A criminal organization is as much a threat to us from across the ocean as it is across the street. That’s why we made the strategic decision to go after networks and their leadership wherever they are found.”

[SOURCE]



Although outsiders have not been allowed to inspect the “war room” in suburban Virginia and see its staff at work, national-security officials offered details of the operation to The Daily Beast, including the identity of the counterintelligence expert who has been put in charge: Brig. General Robert A. Carr of the Defense Intelligence Agency.



Officials say Carr, handpicked for the assignment by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is highly respected among his colleagues at DIA, the Pentagon’s equivalent of the CIA, and a fitting adversary to Assange, the nomadic Australian-born computer hacker who founded WikiLeaks and is now believed to be in Sweden.



“I wouldn’t want to go up against General Carr,” a Pentagon official said. “Very smart guy.” Carr served in Afghanistan for much of last year before his transfer to the DIA in Washington, where he runs the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center. In his battle against Assange, officials say, Carr’s central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.



The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

[SOURCE]



DAVID HOUSE: So, the grand jury, as I understand it, is investigating the associations between Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the alleged associations between them. As I understand it, it was convened around November of last year and has been running ever since. Recently, subpoenas have been issued to members of the Bradley Manning Support Network and others in the Boston area. I, myself, have been among these people that had a subpoena issued. And so, I had to go to the grand jury on June 15, 2011, just a few weeks ago, because they--



AMY GOODMAN: In Alexandria?



DAVID HOUSE: Right. And I was commanded to testify before the grand jury everything I knew about Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, even Jacob Appelbaum, people of that sort. During the grand jury, I refused to answer any questions aside from my name and address, pleading the Fifth Amendment--well, the Fifth, First and Fourth Amendments, to whichever the question that was asked during the grand jury. And it was quite a controversy, actually, because despite the fact that the six AUSAs, assistant U.S. attorneys, that were present were very upset by this, they were also very upset at my note taking and tried to get me to stop taking notes the entire time, saying things such as, "I would like to state for the record Mr. House is not answering the questions and is instead taking notes," and kind of ridiculing me openly for doing that, saying, you know, "Oh, did you get the last question? Did you get everything down?"

[SOURCE]



Last month, I reported that the FBI had served a Cambridge resident with a subpoena compelling his testimony in the active Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, and that the subpoena revealed a very broad scope to the criminal investigation. A similar subpoena has now been served on David House - one of the founders of the Bradley Manning Support Network who helped publicize the oppressive conditions of Manning's detention and who then had his laptop seized by the government without a warrant - compelling his testimony before the Grand Jury next Wednesday. The subpoena and accompanying documents received by House can be viewed here and here.



This latest subpoena reveals how active the criminal investigation is and how committed the Obama administration is to criminally pursuing the whistleblowing site. Also receiving subpoenas in addition to House and the Cambridge resident have been ex-Manning boyfriend Tyler Watkins, and a cryptography expert at Princeton, Nadia Heninger (whose Princeton photo is credited to Jacob Appelbaum, the persistently harassed American once identified as a WikiLeaks spokesman).

[SOURCE]







On January 26, 2011, Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, a leading private intelligence firm which bills itself as a kind of shadow CIA, sent an excited email to his colleagues. "Text Not for Pub," he wrote. "We" meaning the U.S. government "have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." Burton, a former federal agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Services, had reason to trust his information. He often boasted of his stellar government sources ("CIA cronies," he called them in another email), and in his role as a government counter-terror agent he had worked on some of the most high-profile terrorism cases of recent years, including the arrest of the first World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef. As the VP of Texas-based Stratfor Global Intelligence, a private firm that contracts with corporations and several government agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, to collect and analyze intelligence on political situations around the world, it was part of his job to keep those contacts alive and share inside information with analysts at the company. (The emails cited in this story contained in a leak of 5 million internal Stratfor messages were examined by Rolling Stone in an investigative partnership with Wikileaks.)

[SOURCE]

[SOURCE]



We are called upon to determine the public's right to access orders issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) and related documents at the pre-grand jury phase of an ongoing criminal investigation. Because we find that there is no First Amendment right to access such documents, and the common law right to access such documents is presently outweighed by countervailing interests, we deny the request for relief.



[...]



This case involves the § 2703(d) orders pertaining to the Government's request for records of electronic communications relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The underlying facts of the investigation, which are not presently before us, relate to the unauthorized release of classified documents to WikiLeaks.org, and the alleged involvement of Bradley E. Manning, a U.S. Army Private First Class.



As part of its investigation, the Government petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and obtained an order pursuant to § 2703(d), from a magistrate judge ("Twitter Order"), directing Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter") to disclose records of electronic communications pertaining to Appellants Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Birgitta Jonsdottir ("Subscribers"). Specifically, the order directed Twitter to provide Subscribers' names, usernames, personal contact information, account information, connection records, financial data, length of service, direct messages to and from email addresses and Internet Protocol addresses for all communications between November 1, 2009, and December 14, 2010. The issuing magistrate judge determined that prior notice "to any person" of the Twitter Order, the Government's application for the Twitter Order ("Twitter Application"), and the ongoing criminal investigation, would "seriously jeopardize the investigation." Consequently, the magistrate judge sealed the Twitter Order and Application, and directed Twitter not to disclose their existence, or the investigation to any person unless and until otherwise ordered by the court.



On January 5, 2011, upon the Government's motion, the magistrate judge unsealed the Twitter Order and authorized Twitter to disclose the order to Subscribers. On January 26, 2011, Subscribers moved the court to vacate the Twitter Order, unseal all documents relating to the Twitter Order, and unseal and publicly docket any other § 2703(d) orders on the subject of the investigation pertaining to Subscribers that were issued to companies other than Twitter ("Other § 2703(d) Orders"). Following a hearing on the motions, the magistrate judge issued a memorandum opinion and an order denying the motion to vacate, and partially granting the motion to unseal as follows: it (1) granted the motion to unseal pleadings filed during the litigation over the Twitter Order; (2) denied the motion to unseal the Twitter Application; (3) denied the motion to unseal the Other § 2703(d) Orders; and (4) took under advisement the issue of public docketing of the Other § 2703(d) Orders and related motions. In ruling on the motion to unseal, the magistrate judge determined that there was no First Amendment right to access the Twitter Application, and the Other § 2703(d) Orders and their applications. The magistrate judge also determined that the common law presumption of access to judicial records was overcome because the sealed documents contained "sensitive nonpublic facts, including the identity of targets and witnesses in an ongoing criminal investigation."



[...]



The motions that support these § 2703(d) orders, the orders themselves, and the very existence of these orders implicate or directly convey highly private information and confirm the existence of a criminal investigation.

[SOURCE]



After Movants, through counsel, contacted the Clerk's Office and the Magistrate's chambers, Movants were informed that additional information would be publicly docketed on the running list. JA-169. The new list was identical to the one-page computer entry Movants had previously seen, except that two new notations had been added regarding the individual documents associated with the ec-3 (Twitter) docket, and the list now included references to an ec-5, ec-6, ec-7, ec-8, and ec-9 docket. JA-175-177. Unlike the ec-3 docket, the other EC dockets contain no individual docket entries or other information indicating what documents have been filed. All that appears for them is a case name, "USA v. Under Seal," the name of the judge assigned to the matter, the date the matter was put on the EC list, and miscellaneous case assignment information.

[SOURCE]



Prosecution (Fein): Each agency, the Diplomatic Security Services, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Army CID each had their own purpose although it was coded as a joint investigation because they would share certain information, and that what was done. Army CID only had certain authorities, and their focus was of course on the charged misconduct of Private First Class Manning downrange and back home. And, FBI had and has an ongoing investigation that also include Private First Class Manning[...]



Judge Lind: So what is left in the file that hasn't been turned over to the defense as germane to PFC Manning? Are you telling me there is a broader file and this is a piece of it?



Prosecution (Fein): Your, Honor. Private First Class Manning is a piece of the FBI file, yes.



Judge Lind: And, of that piece how much has been turned over. What remains that has not been turned over to the defense?



Prosecution (Fein): Ma'am, can we have a moment? [...] Ma'am. Your Honor. The FBI law enforcement file investigation is much broader than Private First Class Manning. We have turned over all the documentation that is germane to Private First Class Manning for any witnesses that we would have identified or we suspect to put on our witness list[...]



Judge Lind: Major Fein. How long was the FBI investigation?



Prosecution (Fein): Your Honor. I will have to get back to you on the entire page count. But the page count that the prosecution has produced to the defense is 8, 871 pages...636 documents. Your Honor that does not include the Grand Jury testimony, and just the reason I stood up is that Grand Jury has in open court is currently under your protective order and an Article 3 Judges protective order and should be sealed and not held around in Court, and should be stamped as such. [...]



Judge Lind: OK. So you disclosed about eight thousand pages. Do you have any idea of what percentage of the total file that might be?



Prosecution (Fein): Your, Honor. It is hard to estimate right now. It is probably around 50 percent. I get that is a very rough estimation, and we can get you a number by the end of the today. In fact, I will provide a number before we close this session. [...] Your, Honor. To answer your question about the size of the FBI file that would be germane to this Court Martial. It is 42,000 pages total, my estimation of 50 percent was not correct. So, 3, 475 documents. And the number again that we produced to the defense, was 8, 741 pages, 636 different documents.



Judge Lind: Did the documents...



Prosecution (Fein): I'm sorry. 636 documents, 8, 741 pages.



Judge Lind: And how big is the FBI file did you say?



Prosecution (Fein): 3, 475 [documents] your Honor, and 42, 135 pages.



Judge Lind: So we are not nearly at 50 percent [MISSED]?

[SOURCE]



Defense: Whom else did you uncover doing wrongdoing?



Mander: Seven other civilians. The FBI is potentially involved. I do not know what the FBI has determined.



Defense: Do they include the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks? Was WikiLeaks in this case?



Mander: Yes they are involved in certain aspects.



Defense: Is it your determination...would you agree that my client would have been unable to do this by himself?



Mander: Depends on charge. 'Something by himself' ...other charges require interaction with others.



Defense: Did my client possess the ability to upload from his cubical in Iraq?



Mander: Yes. He could have uploaded to multiple sites.



Defense: Would he not also require the cooperation of others to post to (indecipherable)?



Mander: Not if he owned the site.

[SOURCE[



Mr Coombes added: "If the Department of Justice got their way, they would get a plea in this case, and get my client to be named as one of the witnesses to go after Julian Assange and Wikileaks."

[SOURCE]



A military judge says Army prosecutors don't have to provide the defense with transcripts of federal grand jury testimony regarding government secrets disclosed by Wikileaks. [...]



Manning's lawyers were seeking transcripts from a federal investigation into whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be prosecuted for the disclosure of information that authorities say was provided by Manning.



Lind said that while the FBI and the Army have jointly pursued a WikiLeaks investigation, military prosecutors have no authority to release FBI documents.

[SOURCE]



Dear XXXX,



This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for release of information from the files of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) pertaining to WikiLeaks. Your request was referred from United States Army Intelligence and Security Command, Freedom of Information/Privacy Office and was received at this headquarters on May 12, 2012.



A search of the USACIDC file indexes revealed that an active investigation is in progress with an undetermined completion date. You may submit another written request for a copy of the investigation at a later date, after it is completed. You may consider this an initial denial of your request pursuant to Title 5, USC, Section 552a, Exemption (j)(2) of the Privacy Act and Title 5, USC, Section 552, Exemption (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(F), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C) of the Freedom of Information Act.



Sincerely,

Susan Cugler,

Director, Crime Records Center



[SOURCE]



Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media have revealed that as early as December 7, 2010, the Washington embassy confirmed the [US] Justice Department was conducting an " active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act ".



US officials told the Australian embassy " the WikiLeaks case is unprecedented both in its scale and nature ".



After working contacts inside and outside the US government, the embassy reported on December 22, 2010, that media reports that a secret grand jury had been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, to consider evidence arising from the WikiLeaks investigation were "likely true". The embassy provided Canberra with regular updates through 2011 including reporting on the issuing of subpoenas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before the grand jury and Justice Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts as " casting the net beyond Assange to see if any intermediaries had been involved in communications between Assange and Manning ".



In December last year, the embassy sent a representative to attend all seven days of Private Manning's pre-trial hearing. The embassy's report focused on the prosecution's assertions that Manning had leaked to WikiLeaks " and, specifically, to Julian Assange ." These allegations included that Manning "indiscriminately and systematically" data-mined classified US databases using WikiLeaks' "Most Wanted List" as a guide, that there was direct contact between Manning and Assange, and that Assange may have actively assisted Manning's efforts to extract data.

[SOURCE]



3. Media reports claim that a grand jury has been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia [redacted under s.22 1(a)(ii)] According to [redacted under s.47 F(i)] these reports are accurate . [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said it would be normal practice at this stage of an investigation for a grand jury to be in place since it considerably extended the powers of the prosecutor to gather evidence and it could ultimately issue an indictment. The jury would be under the direction of the prosecutor and all its deliberations would take place in secret. [redacted under s.47 F(i)], however, that excerpts of grand jury proceedings were sometimes read into evidence during subsequent trials, and in this way became public.



4. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said the prosecutor would usually seek information in the name of the grand jury, and it would likely sit once a week to review progress. Should information not be provided willingly, grand juries could compel witnesses to provide evidence, and witnesses could not refuse to do so on grounds of self-incrimination. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] speculated that these powers may be important for obtaining evidence from the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Both [redacted under s.47 F(i)] pointed out that grand juries were not limited by the rules of evidence that would apply during a trial, and could therefore utilise a greater range of information. And similarly, they could scour widely for information that might be useful for the investigation.



5. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said grand juries were appointed for a period of two years, and this could be renewed once (for a total of four years). In theory, the process could, therefore, be a long one.



[redacted under s.33(a)(iii)]



6. On the location of the grand jury, [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said it was likely that prosecutors would have taken the case to Alexandria. It was just across the river from Washington, but the jury pool was more conservative than in the District. There was a history of national security cases being tried there, and facilities for handling classified material had been built at the court during the Bush Administration.



7. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said that grand juries could issue indictments under seal, and that theoretically one could already have been issued for Assange. In this particular case, it would be more likely that an indictment would become known at the point of extradition proceedings, should these take place, in the UK or Sweden.

[SOURCE]



Some with links to Assange have reportedly faced questioning when trying to travel outside the United States and federal authorities at one point demanded Twitter open the accounts of WikiLeaks figures.



[...]



The US Justice Department will not comment on the grand jury probe and says it has no role in the extradition proceedings in London. But spokesman Dean Boyd said: "There continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter."

[SOURCE]



Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange's case. Inquiries related to the following:

If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization;

Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;

Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

[SOURCE]



George Little, a spokesman for the Pentagon... says the Pentagon 'has warned Mr. Assange and Wikileaks against soliciting service members to break the law by providing classified information to them, and that it is our view that continued possession by Wikileaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law. We regard this as a law enforcement matter.'

[SOURCE]



Political or social activists also may use the tools of economic espionage against US companies, agencies, or other entities. The self- styled whistleblowing group WikiLeaks has already published computer files provided by corporate insiders indicating allegedly illegal or unethical behavior at a Swiss bank, a Netherlands-based commodities company, and an international pharmaceutical trade association. LulzSec—another hacktivist group—has exfiltrated data from several businesses that it posted for public viewing on its website.

[SOURCE]



Iceland's interior minister said Friday that he ordered the country's police not to cooperate with FBI agents sent to investigate WikiLeaks two years ago, offering a rare glimpse into the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation of the secret-busting site.



Ogmundur Jonasson told The Associated Press that he was upset when he found out that FBI agents had flown to the country to interview an unidentified WikiLeaks associate in August 2011.



"I, for one, was not aware that they were coming to Iceland," he said in a brief telephone interview. "When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police."

[SOURCE]



The claim: "It hasn't happened yet, so it won't."

...there remains no extradition request. There may never be one.

[SOURCE]



Since the prosecutor solely orchestrates the proceedings, it is no surprise that grand juries almost always serve as a rubber stamp for prosecution. A former chief judge of New York once famously noted that 'any prosecutor that wanted to could indict a ham sandwich.' In the rare event that a grand jury does not indict, the prosecutor can simply impanel a different grand jury and seek an indictment before a new grand jury.

[SOURCE]



In the federal system, a grand jury can sit for up to 36 months, although it doesn't have to sit that long. The court that swears in a new grand jury can extend its term in 6-month increments, for a total of 36 months[.]

[SOURCE]



7. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said that grand juries could issue indictments under seal, and that theoretically one could already have been issued for Assange. In this particular case, it would be more likely that an indictment would become known at the point of extradition proceedings, should these take place, in the UK or Sweden. [...]



**Extradition**



17. According to commentators, extradition poses significant challenges for prosecutors. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said an extradition request from the US could be made with or without an indictment but that the request would be stronger with an indictment and extradition therefore more likely to be successful. If the US were also to request extradition from the United Kingdom, the UK's Home Secretary would then decide which request would take precedent, taking into account the relative seriousness of the offences, where they were committed, and the timing of the requests.

[SOURCE]



So far as the UK is concerned, were the extradition case to Sweden to fail in the courts here, the US would be most likely, if the above presumption is correct, to initiate extradition proceedings in the UK, as opposed to Sweden. It is a matter of public record that the US on a significant number of occasions has synchronised extradition requests with the conclusion of a pending case in the relevant domestic jurisdiction , and has relied on the cooperation of the requested country to do so; the UK and Sweden have in the past provided exactly such close cooperation . Were Mr. Assange's appeal in the UK to succeed conclusively in the near future (and were no further appeal to be possible for the prosecution to the Supreme Court) a provisional warrant could be issued at short notice by the USA pending the obtaining of warrant issued by a US court on the basis of a grand jury indictment, if the potential for such a warrant were claimed to exist.



There have been a number of cases of extraditon synchronised in precisely this way. For example:



The case of Eiderous, who was held in prison in the UK in relation to immigration matters until 9 July 1999, when he succeeded in a habeas corpus application. Within hours a warrant was obtained from the USA on the basis of the testimony of a "cooperating witness" (ie a witness who would otherwise face a severe sentence in the absence of cooperation) and within 24 hours of his release he was arrested.



The case of Kassir. This Swedish national successfully challenged an extradition request by the US; the Swedish extradition treaty excludes Swedish nationals from extradition to the US. He was freed from prison. However, Kassir was also a Lebanese national. He was arrested in Prague airport while in transit to Lebanon, and subsequently extradited to the US (also on the basis of evidence of a "cooperating witness"). The Swedish press reported that was probably coordinated by the Swedish special police, SAPO , and that this type of coordination is the standard operating procedure of mutual assistance in transnational crime - link: (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/lag-alskar-bin-laden)



Louis B. Susman, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, said in February that America would 'wait to see how things work out in the British courts' before taking any action.

[SOURCE]



Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.



Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden.

[SOURCE]







The claim: "The law wouldn't allow it."

It is not even clear for what crime the United States could indict Assange and apply for his extradition.

[SOURCE]



[T]he FBI yesterday served a Grand Jury subpoena in Boston on a Cambridge resident, compelling his appearance to testify in Alexandria, Virgina. Alexandria is where a Grand Jury has been convened to criminally investigate WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and determine whether an indictment against them is warranted. The individual served has been publicly linked to the WikiLeaks case, and it is highly likely that the Subpoena was issued in connection with that investigation. Notably, the Subopena explicitly indicates that the Grand Jury is investigating possible violations of the Espionage Act ( 18 U.S.C. 793 ) , a draconian 1917 law under which no non-government-employee has ever been convicted for disclosing classified information.



[...]



The investigation appears also to focus on Manning, as the Subpoena indicates the Grand Jury is investigating parties for 'knowingly accessing a computer without authorization'



[...]



[I]t also cites the conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, as well as the conspiracy provision of the Espionage Act (subsection (g)), suggesting that they are investigating those who may have helped Manning obtain access.



The New York Times previously reported that the DOJ hoped to build a criminal case against WikiLeaks and Assange by proving they conspired with Manning ahead of time (rather than merely passively received his leaked documents). Also cited is 18 U.S.C. 641, which makes it a crime to 'embezzle, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert... any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States.' [...]



The serving of this Subpoena strongly suggests that the DOJ criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange continues in a serious way;



[...]



It also appears clear that the DOJ is strongly considering an indictment under the Espionage Act - an act that would be radical indeed for non-government-employees doing nothing other than what American newspapers do on a daily basis (and have repeatedly done in partnership with WikiLeaks).

[SOURCE]



A subpoena has been issued for your appearance as a witness before a federal grand jury in this District...



As a grand jury witness, you will be asked to testify and answer questions concerning possible violations of federal criminal law...



We advise you that the Grand Jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal law involving, but not necessarily limited to conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. §793(g) and conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 to wit: knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and having obtained information protected from disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1030(a) and knowingly stealing or converting any record or thing of value of the United States or any department or agency thereof in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641 ...



Sincerely,

Neil H. MacBride

United States Attorney

[SOURCE]



That is not the only tool we have to use in the investigation of this matter... People would be misimpressioned if they think the only thing we are looking at is the Espionage Act.

[SOURCE]



**Possible Charges**



8. Attorney General Eric Holder said on 29 November that the Administration was pursuing a "very serious criminal investigation" into the matter. On 6 December, he said that charges could be brought under the Espionage Act of 1917 or "other statutes, other tools... at our disposal". Commentators have noted that US criminal statutes and case law do not provide a clear path forward for indicting Assange. There are a range of statutes that protect information depending upon its nat ure, the identity of the discloser and of those to whom it was disclosed, and the means by which it was obtained.



9. Commentators generally agree that most of the information disclosed by WikiLeaks is likely to fall under the general rubric of information related to national defense, which is expressly protected by the Espionage Act. Many commentators have focused on section 18 USC 793, which applies to non-government employees engaged in gathering, transmitting, or in receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the US or to the benefit of a foreign nation.



10. The media has been quick to note that successful prosecution under the Espionage Act for publication of classified information would be difficult and unprecedented. The US government brought one prosecution, unsuccessfully, in 2005, in a case involving two American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists who allegedly disclosed national security secrets to unauthorised individuals, including Israeli officials, other AIPAC staff, and a Washington Post reporter. The charges were ultimately dropped, reportedly due in part to the prosecution's failure to prove that the requisite intent and concerns about further disclosures of classified material at trial.



11. A central theme has been the question of whether WikiLeaks is a media organisation, and afforded additional protection under the First Amendemnt. [whole lines redacted under s.47 F (i)] The general view of expert commentators is that a prosecution could not be successful unless it showed in court that WikiLeaks was not a media organisation since the history of these cases has never seen a media outlet convicted for publication of leaked documents.



12. Recent media commentary has identified that the most likely route to a successful prosecution would be to show that Assange had acted as a co-conspirator - soliciting, encouraging or assisting Manning to obtain and provide the documents. The New York Times has reported that the Justice Department is investigating Assange's communications with Manning and looking for any technical assistance Assange may have provided [redacted under s. 22 1(a)(ii) and s.47 F(i)] agreed with this contention. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] that the government would want to see "technical help" or "other substantive aid" - more than "mere encouragement" from Assange- because encouraging sources to provide secret information is what journalists do every day, and courts woul dbe wary of criminalising such activity. Evidence of a conspiracy could assist prosecutors rebut claims that WikiLeaks was acting merely as a media organisation. It could also possibly help deflect challenges to the extraterritorial application of the Espionage Act to non-citizens, as 18 USC 793 and 794 can be construed as applying to non-citizens if they are found to have played an active role in obtaining the information.



[paragraph redacted under s.47 F(i), s. 33(b), and s.22 1(a)(ii)]Commentators have speculated that Manning may strike a deal with prosecutors in exchange for testifying against Assange.



14. Commentators have also speculated that Holder's reference to "other tools" could include 18 USC 1030, which prohibits the wilful retention, communication, or transmission of classified information retrieved by means of knowingly accessing a computer without (or in excess of) authorisation, with reason to believe that such information "could be used to the injury of the US, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." 18 USD 641 prohibits the theft or conversion of government property or records for one's own use or the use of another. However, that statute has never been used to prosecute anyone for receiving classified information. It was used in 1984 to prosecute a US naval intelligence analyst who gave top secret photographs of a Soviet aircraft carrier to British publication 'Jane's Defense Weekly'. But only Morison, not the publication, was prosecuted and sentenced. In 2001, a former analyst for the Drug Enforcement Administration was prosecuted under the same law, for giving unclassified information to a London newspaper. Once again, the newspaper was not charged. [redacted under s.47 F(i) and s.22 1(a)(ii)]



15. Central to many of these statutes is the element of intent and demonstrated potential damage to national security. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University, told a media legal panel that Assange's public statements may make it hard for the defence to portray him as someone who did not appreciate the harm that might result from the disclosures. Vladeck noted that the US government had tried to ensure Assange was on notice, sending letters from both the State Department's legal adviser and the Defense Department's general counsel prior to the latest round of disclosures , and that the State Department advised Assaange that 'as long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing', perhaps foreshadowing a possible argument that WikiLeaks was violating espionage laws merely by retaining the cables.

[SOURCE]



In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue , as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated. There is some authority, however, for interpreting 18 U.S.C. Section 793, which prohibits the communication, transmission, or delivery of protected information to anyone not entitled to possess it, to exclude the 'publication' of material by the media. Publication is not expressly proscribed in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(a), either, although it is possible that publishing covered information in the media could be construed as an 'indirect' transmission of such information to a foreign party, as long as the intent that the information reach said party can be demonstrated.



The death penalty is available under that subsection if the offense results in the identification and subsequent death of 'an individual acting as an agent of the United States,' 83 or the disclosure of information relating to certain other broadly defined defense matters. The word 'publishes' does appear in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(b), which applies to wartime disclosures of information related to the 'public defense' that 'might be useful to the enemy' and is in fact intended to becommunicated to the enemy. The types of information covered seem to be limited to military plans and information about fortifications and the like, which may exclude data related to purely historical matters.

[SOURCE]

[SOURCE]



The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917 . That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."



The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in psrison.



In a letter sent to Mr. Assange and his lawyer on Nov. 27, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh warned in strong terms that the documents had been obtained "in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action." [...]



None of this stopped Mr. Assange. That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful.



In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that "it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated."



Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a damning picture.

[SOURCE]



WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge dissemination of classified government documents, are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information. Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.



[...]



Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

[SOURCE]







The claim: "the First Amendment will protect him." Some UK media commentators demonstrate extraordinary naivety about US law, in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the US investigation against Assange. They argue that the US investigation will not proceed because it would appear to conflict with the First Amendment to the US constitution.



For example, Nick Cohen, in The Observer, that concern about the US investigation against Assange is paranoid, on the basis that a civil liberties group has opined that it is unconstitutional.

More pertinently, Greenwald and the rest of Assange's supporters do not tell us how the Americans could prosecute the incontinent leaker. American democracy is guilty of many crimes and corruptions. But the First Amendment to the US constitution is the finest defence of freedom of speech yet written. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it would be unconstitutional for a judge to punish Assange.

[SOURCE] Elementarily, the ACLU does not have prior review powers over the actions of the US government. The ACLU also holds that the following are unconstitutional: targeted killings; the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques"; warrantless surveillance of American citizens; the use of adminstrative subpoenas,



The



Elsewhere, the New Statesman's legal correspondent makes a similar argument:

It is not even clear for what crime the United States could indict Assange and apply for his extradition. If it were an espionage or computer offence in respect of his role at Wikileaks then [he would] possibly have protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution [.]

[SOURCE]

New Statesman's writer must know that First Amendment protections could only be meaningfully argued once Julian Assange was in American custody, was formally indicted, and was arguing in front of American courts. That is a few steps too late for someone who wants to avoid extradition to the United States, and the lengthy pretrial detention, politicized criminal trial, and probable conviction that would await him there.



Julian Assange is best advised not to bet the rest of his life on the protections of a US constitution beset on all sides by national security and secrecy exceptions. The fact that if he were to face trial in the United States he could invoke the First Amendment does not in any way imply that he should incautiously expose himself to a US prosecution. It would be extremely bad legal advice to recommend giving the prosecution a free kick on this basis.





Back to Contents

And so on. Given this deluge of evidence, it is difficult to see why UK media commentators remain unaware of the legal theories being entertained by US prosecutors, unless they made no effort to research the topic.Some UK media commentators demonstrate extraordinary naivety about US law, in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the US investigation against Assange. They argue that the US investigation will not proceed because it would appear to conflict with the First Amendment to the US constitution.For example, Nick Cohen, in proposes that concern about the US investigation against Assange is paranoid, on the basis that a civil liberties group has opined that it is unconstitutional.Elementarily, the ACLU does not have prior review powers over the actions of the US government. The ACLU also holds that the following are unconstitutional: indefinite detention without trial "extraordinary rendition" ; and a lengthy bill of other transgressions by the American government. None of these opinions have prevented the government committing these transgressions, and continuing to do so.The ACLU has said that a prosecution of Assange would be unconstitutional . It has done this not because it believes that a prosecution of Julian Assange is unlikely but because it is mindful of its extreme likelihood.Elsewhere, thelegal correspondent makes a similar argument:This is a disingenuous legal argument. Since he is a lawyer, thewriter must know that First Amendment protections could only be meaningfully argued once Julian Assange was in American custody, was formally indicted, and was arguing in front of American courts. That is a few steps too late for someone who wants to avoid extradition to the United States, and the lengthy pretrial detention, politicized criminal trial, and probable conviction that would await him there.Julian Assange is best advised not to bet the rest of his life on the protections of a US constitution beset on all sides by national security and secrecy exceptions. The fact that if he were to face trial in the United States he could invoke the First Amendment does not in any way imply that he should incautiously expose himself to a US prosecution. It would be extremely bad legal advice to recommend giving the prosecution a free kick on this basis.

EXTRADITION FROM SWEDEN





The speech by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino when asylum was granted to Julian Assange makes clear that his asylum was not granted to avoid questioning in Sweden. A factor that contributed to Ecuador's decision was that Sweden refused to put adequate safeguards in place to protect Assange's safety:

2. Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;



3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;



4. That, despite Ecuador's diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked to give adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;



5. That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;



6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;



7. That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;

[SOURCE]

It is therefore clear that Ecuador is committed, diplomatically, to the progression of the Swedish case, under terms that adequately safeguard Julian Assange's rights.



Amnesty International has called for Sweden to engage Ecuador diplomatically to find a solution.

The Swedish authorities should issue assurances to the UK and to Julian Assange that if he leaves Ecuador’s London embassy and agrees to go to Sweden to face sexual assault claims, he will not be extradited to the USA in connection with Wikileaks, Amnesty International said.



In the wake of the Wikileaks co-founder addressing the United Nations and with talks due between the British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ecuadorian officials, Amnesty International added that it was time to break the impasse. [...]



Amnesty International believes that the forced transfer of Julian Assange to the USA in the present circumstances would expose him to a real risk of serious human rights violations , possibly including violation of his right to freedom of expression and the risk that he may be held in detention in conditions which violate the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

[SOURCE]

Hostile commentators in the UK press and elsewhere have ignored the findings of the government of Ecuador, and claimed that extradition to Sweden carries no risk of further transit to the United States:

Some supporters of Assange contend that he would happily return to Sweden to be interrogated, if only he could be certain that he would not then be extradited to the United States. The underlying concern is that Assange is somehow likely to be extradited to the United States from Sweden.

[SOURCE]





Julian Assange challenged extradition to Sweden in the UK because he had a well-founded fear that, if he were to be extradited to Sweden, he would be at risk of ending up in the United States, whether by extradition, rendition, temporary surrender or coordinated deportation or expulsion from Sweden to that country.The speech by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino when asylum was granted to Julian Assange makes clear that his asylum was not granted to avoid questioning in Sweden. A factor that contributed to Ecuador's decision was that Sweden refused to put adequate safeguards in place to protect Assange's safety:It is therefore clear that Ecuador is committed, diplomatically, to the progression of the Swedish case, under terms that adequately safeguard Julian Assange's rights.has called for Sweden to engage Ecuador diplomatically to find a solution.Hostile commentators in the UK press and elsewhere have ignored the findings of the government of Ecuador, and claimed that extradition to Sweden carries no risk of further transit to the United States:A variety of sophisticated arguments are made in support of this claim. None of them carry merit. They are dealt with in turn.

The claim: "easier from the UK than Sweden"

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States;

[SOURCE]



Assange would be far safer from any extradition to the United States in Sweden than he would be in England. If Assange was genuinely concerned about avoiding extradition, rather than avoiding the rape investigation, then properly advised he should go to Sweden without delay.

[SOURCE]

Assange would be far safer from any extradition to the United States in Sweden than he would be in England. If Assange was genuinely concerned about avoiding extradition, rather than avoiding the rape investigation, then properly advised he should go to Sweden without delay.



This is false, since Julian Assange is in the protective custody of the government of Ecuador, and is therefore safer from extradition to the United States than he would be if he were in Sweden or the United Kingdom. It is false to suggest that Julian Assange, without guarantees, would be safer in Swedish custody than he is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The Ecuadorian government has committed to protect him from the United States. The Swedish government has not, and will not.



7. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said that grand juries could issue indictments under seal, and that theoretically one could already have been issued for Assange. In this particular case, it would be more likely that an indictment would become known at the point of extradition proceedings, should these take place, in the UK or Sweden. [...]



**Extradition**



17. According to commentators, extradition poses significant challenges for prosecutors. [redacted under s.47 F(i)] said an extradition request from the US could be made with or without an indictment but that the request would be stronger with an indictment and extradition therefore more likely to be successful. If the US were also to request extradition from the United Kingdom, the UK's Home Secretary would then decide which request would take precedent, taking into account the relative seriousness of the offences, where they were committed, and the timing of the requests.

[SOURCE]



So far as the UK is concerned, were the extradition case to Sweden to fail in the courts here, the US would be most likely, if the above presumption is correct, to initiate extradition proceedings in the UK, as opposed to Sweden. It is a matter of public record that the US on a significant number of occasions has synchronised extradition requests with the conclusion of a pending case in the relevant domestic jurisdiction , and has relied on the cooperation of the requested country to do so; the UK and Sweden have in the past provided exactly such close cooperation . Were Mr. Assange's appeal in the UK to succeed conclusively in the near future (and were no further appeal to be possible for the prosecution to the Supreme Court) a provisional warrant could be issued at short notice by the USA pending the obtaining of warrant issued by a US court on the basis of a grand jury indictment, if the potential for such a warrant were claimed to exist.



There have been a number of cases of extraditon synchronised in precisely this way. For example:



The case of Eiderous, who was held in prison in the UK in relation to immigration matters until 9 July 1999, when he succeeded in a habeas corpus application. Within hours a warrant was obtained from the USA on the basis of the testimony of a "cooperating witness" (ie a witness who would otherwise face a severe sentence in the absence of cooperation) and within 24 hours of his release he was arrested.



The case of Kassir. This Swedish national successfully challenged an extradition request by the US; the Swedish extradition treaty excludes Swedish nationals from extradition to the US. He was freed from prison. However, Kassir was also a Lebanese national. He was arrested in Prague airport while in transit to Lebanon, and subsequently extradited to the US (also on the basis of evidence of a "cooperating witness"). The Swedish press reported that was probably coordinated by the Swedish special police, SAPO , and that this type of coordination is the standard operating procedure of mutual assistance in transnational crime - link: (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/lag-alskar-bin-laden)



Louis B. Susman, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, said in February that America would 'wait to see how things work out in the British courts' before taking any action.

[SOURCE]



Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.



Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden.

[SOURCE]



Given the complexity of extradition law, where you end up churning into political bedrock wherever you dive, ultimately all 'expert opinion' on this point is speculative. Arguments that it would be easier to extradite from Sweden do not hinge solely on the treaties, but make reference to the pragmatic realities of London's larger and more robust legal community. They hold that while Assange would be more vulnerable to extradition de jure, he would be in a de facto stronger position. The UK's almost unilateral extradition treaty with the US is of course shameful, and arguments taking that into account certainly merit attention.



However, what David Allen Green fails to mention is that it is all moot. Neither the UK nor Sweden are attractive places from which to be fighting extradition to the United States. We can quibble over which is worse, but that's missing the point. The extradition case kept Assange pinned in the UK under bail conditions. Far from wishing to remain vulnerable to the terms of the UK-US treaty, Assange was forced to be. That "the United Kingdom would... swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States" is most likely true. That only further justifies Assange's asylum bid.

[SOURCE]

While fighting the Swedish case, Assange was detained in England under house arrest, and if extradited, he would be detained immediately in a Swedish remand cell, awaiting a decision as to whether to charge him. Either way, he was not in a good position. In the absence of guarantees from Sweden that he would not be extradited, he had a well-grounded fear of being extradited to the United States. The question of which jurisdiction would more readily roll over for the United States may interest jurists, but for those interested in why Assange sought asylum, it is a red herring.



The claim: "there are political exceptions" Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to fear, because Sweden has a legal obligation not to extradite people accused of "political offenses."

If it were an espionage or computer offence in respect of his role at Wikileaks then... the actual extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States prohibits extradition for political or espionage offences.

[SOURCE]



14. Commentators have also speculated that Holder's reference to "other tools" could include 18 USC 1030, which prohibits the wilful retention, communication, or transmission of classified information retrieved by means of knowingly accessing a computer without (or in excess of) authorisation, with reason to believe that such information "could be used to the injury of the US, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." 18 USD 641 prohibits the theft or conversion of government property or records for one's own use or the use of another.

[SOURCE]



The claim: "there are death penalty and torture exceptions" Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to worry about, because Sweden has a legal obligation not to extradite people where there is a risk of torture, or the death penalty:

The treaty also prevents extradition where there is a death penalty.

[SOURCE]



Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

[SOURCE]



Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to fear, because Sweden has a legal obligation not to extradite people accused of "political offenses."As discussed above , the US Department of Justice has been considering an array of possible charges against Julian Assange, some of which would not have political exemptions. For instance, 18 USC 1030, the overbroad statute under which Gary McKinnon and Aaron Swartz were being charged , has been considered. As internal cables from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs relate:Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to worry about, because Sweden has a legal obligation not to extradite people where there is a risk of torture, or the death penalty:What this means in practice is that Sweden would make diplomatic overtures to the US that no extradition would be allowed unless the death penalty and torture are taken off the table. Taking the death penalty off the table leaves the possibility of life imprisonment without parole, which is what Bradley Manning is facing. That is little better, and arguably worse, than the death penalty. This is before it is even considered that Julian Assange should not be facing any criminal prosecution for his work in WikiLeaks. That he would even have to fight such a prosecution would be an injustice. Life imprisonment is something the government of Ecuador explicitly said would violate Julian Assange's human rights, and is something the risk of which formed grounds for his receipt of asylum.

6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;

[SOURCE]

On top of this, taking torture off the table means whatever the US government says it means. The US government does not officially, legally or internally use the word 'torture' to refer to any of its torture methods. The State Department cables released by WikiLeaks which deal with the issue of extraordinary rendition through European states paint a grim picture of the trustworthiness of diplomatic assurances that torture would not occur.

From a UN Note on Diplomatic Assurances and International Refugee Protection: 51. Diplomatic assurances would meet the suitability criterion only if they could effectively eliminate all reasonably possible manifestations of persecution in the individual case. The decision-maker would need to consider whether a person who may be subjected to a particular form of persecution linked to a 1951 Convention ground may be exposed to other kinds of serious harm for those reasons, even if the assurances would effectively eliminate a specific threat. For example, an undertaking given by the country of origin to the effect that an applicant would not be subjected to torture if he or she were to be extradited would not necessarily eliminate a risk of persecution in the form of excessive or disproportionate punishment, or serious discrimination which the individual concerned is likely to face independently of the criminal proceedings against him or her.

[SOURCE]

The UN Special Rapporteur has formally found that Bradley Manning was treated in a manner tantamount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and possibly torture. And yet the US government denies that he has been mistreated. The US president has declared his treatment "appropriate." The Swedish government has not clarified its position on the treatment of Bradley Manning.

This makes it very easy to "take torture off the table," since it is never recognized that it is on the table. It simply isn't recognized as torture. But the treatment Bradley Manning was subjected to - recognized as possibly torture - is reasonably routine in the US prison system: Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article - entitled 'Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?' - the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, 'all human beings experience isolation as torture.' By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person's mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that 'solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture.' For that reason, many Western nations - and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses - refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence...



[T]he conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. - and are still recognized in many Western nations - as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many 'prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.' And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as 'torture' and compared it to '[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel.' The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by 'War on Terror' detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held - particularly prolonged solitary confinement - violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where 'the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month.' From the Journal article referenced above:

International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

[SOURCE]

Sadly, the "multiple proceedings now pending" referenced in the above article are no longer pending. Among others, Babar Ahmed, who spent nearly a decade of his life in detention in the United Kingdom without trial, lost his case in the ECtHR. He was surrendered to the United States on October 5th, 2012. If Julian Assange is to draw any conclusions about the ECtHR from the fate of Babar Ahmed and others, they must be pessimistic conclusions.



The claim: "The UK has a veto" Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to fear, because the UK Home Secretary Theresa May would have to approve any extradition from Sweden before it could proceed:

Some apologists for the idea of extraditing Julian Assange without any safeguards for his rights argue that he has nothing to fear, because the UK Home Secretary Theresa May would have to approve any extradition from Sweden before it could proceed:

In Sweden Assange would furthermore have the protection of any onward extradition requiring both the consent of the United Kingdom and Sweden.

[SOURCE]



One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

[SOURCE]



Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and publisher. He is the founder and editor of WikiLeaks , a public-interest publication designed to provide a safe conduit for whistleblowers all over the world to expose secret wrongdoing, regardless of political ideology or allegiance. Assange's publishing and journalistic work is widely recognized: he is the recipient of the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award , the 2010 Martha Gellhorn Prize , the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal , the 2011 Walkley Award for Journalism and the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award in the Arts He is also a refugee, living under the diplomatic protection of the government of Ecuador, in the embassy of Ecuador in London. He is being investigated for espionage by authorities in the United States . The UK authorities also want him, and have surrounded the embassy with police. And the Swedish authorities want him too.In 2010 Julian Assange oversaw the analysis and publication of over half a million documents from the Pentagon and US State Department; the largest such publication in history. He coordinated the analysis of the documents by 110 different media and human rights groups. The documents revealed thousands of issues embarrassing to the United States government, including the precise details about the deaths of more than 100,000 individual people in Iraq and Afghanistan.In reprisal, the US government initiated a criminal investigation , targeting Assange and his staff at WikiLeaks with espionage charges. That investigation is being carried out by a federal grand jury - a prosecutorial mechanism that virtually assures that he will be indicted. The investigation is ongoing.There is also a concurrent investigation into the WikiLeaks 2012 publication of " The Global Intelligence Files " : five million documents from the US intelligence contractor, Stratfor.These are the threats against which he has been granted asylum by the government of Ecuador, which has asserted The UK government officially intends to arrest Assange and extradite him to Sweden, in accordance with the orders of a UK court. The extradition order came at the end of a lengthy court battle in the UK, when Assange was challenging an extradition request from the Swedish authorities.After Assange entered Ecuador's embassy on the 19th June 2012, the London Metropolitan Police force surrounded the building, and have remained there ever since, at a cost to the UK taxpayer that had reached almost £3m by mid-February 2013 . Shortly before he was granted asylum, the UK government threatened to violate the Vienna Conventions , removing the embassy's diplomatic status, and initiating a police invasion of the premises in order to apprehend Assange. After this was internationally condemned , the UK government withdrew its threat, and resigned itself to respecting the inviolability of Ecuador's diplomatic premises. The embassy remains surrounded by the London Metropolitan Police force.In 2010, a separate investigation was initiated by Swedish prosecutors in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange is sought by the Swedish prosecutor in order to be questioned in this investigation. He has not been charged. He has made every attempt to cooperate short of those which would increase his risk of extradition to the United States. The prosecutor issued an extradition request in order to question him, despite the availability of alternatives.On the basis that, without adequate safeguards, extradition to Sweden would render him vulnerable to further transit to the United States, Assange fought the extradition in the English courts , over the course of two years, during which he lived under house arrest in the United Kingdom.It should be stressed that Julian Assange's court cases in the UK were on the bureaucratic matter of whether the extradition order, or European Arrest Warrant, was valid. They were not on the substance of the allegations against Julian Assange. He has not been charged with any crime, much less convicted of an