The whole thing is a mess and like A doesn"t appear 2 be going anywhere. Which is why I suggested A defend himself from the Ecudor Embassey to Sweden by video link. I think this is a special case. A, AA & SW should be treated equally. We have a recent history of people appearing in cases in the UK by video link. We desperately need need honesty and THE TRUTH and I post as someone with sympathy for WikiLeaks \Bradley Manning. Knowlege is power.

No factual based story is gonna influenece any Assange Cultist. You should have just written the arrival of the Spaceship has been canceled and no one is coming to get the Leader - except the Police.

Sooner or later.

"Assange is not required for mere questioning; he is required to surrender for interrogation before any charges can be made and prosecution brought."

Could be rewritten as:
Assange is not required for mere interrogation; he is required to surrender for questioning before any charges can be made and prosecution brought.

The only reason for the prosecutor to refuse to question Assange in the UK is ....... just because.

You gloss over the fact that a senior prosecutor reviewed the cases and considered no crime in the case of SW. She considered that an investigation should continue into molestation of AA.
It's not as simple as you make out.

The 'No extradition if death or torture involved' is a complete red herring.
They will charge him with something related to computer crime. They just might be able to find something that is copyright rather than (theoretically) public domain.

What if Assange went to Sweden with the UK issuing an EAW based on his jumping bail?
Would the EAW be guaranteed to take precedence over any US extradition or any move to "loan" Assange to the US?

It is so pleasing to read your article since you are concerned about the facts of the case and not dealing with the myths. Excellent read.

There were many remarkable statements by English solicitors about the case.
"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza. I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls."

The allegation of “sex by surprise” was a flat mischaracterization of the allegations in the EAW. There were many more remarkable statements and misrepresentations of fact. To me it is obvious that Assange's lawyers have tried to mislead the public and the courts from the beginning. I know of it first hand since I have worked with them.

There is one small error in your excellent piece that I think is of interest.
You write:
"Under cross-examination, it became clear that Assange’s own Swedish lawyer had misled the court and Assange's other witnesses over whether the Swedish prosecutor had been in contact to request interrogation before Assange left Sweden."

I was one of the other witnesses. I was the only witness that was not mislead. The reason I was not mislead was that I did not accept that the English lawyers wrote parts of my witness statement. In fact, prior to the hearing 7-8 February 2011, I know that the prosecutors had contacted the defense to arrange for an interview. In an article posted on my blog on 25 January, two weeks before the hearing, I wrote: "What happened when they [the police] tried to get Julian Assange around the 20th of September? Apparently they failed and he leaves the country." My post can be found at samtycke.nu/2011/01/25/maste-man-ljuga-for-att-bli-trodd/

You left out some important facts. Probably for some reason. It is a fact that Julian Assange has avoided interviews on three separate occasions. 28 September, 6 October and 14 October. When his lawyer informed the prosecutor on 12 October that he could not get in touch with his client, the lawyer was warned that if Julian Assange did not appear for an interview the prosecutor would issue an EAW. Julian Assange payed no attention even though he was advised by his Swedish lawyer to come in for an interview.

According to Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law, who recently stated on Swedish Radio the prosecutor would probably have to drop the case against Assange once he has been questioned, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”.

Plainly the truth to this is that it was never about crimes to be answered, it is about allowing the US to get their hands on Assange. For it would be materially tricky for the UK to allow extradition to the US after having worked so hard on extracting from GITMO the UK citizens who were so called terror suspects.

Even assuming the case got off the ground, there are numerous issues of procedural process, of corrupted electronic evidence. Take for instance the issue that the Police co-interrogator on this case Irmeli Krans has been a personal friend of Ms AA since at least 2009, and she was also at the crayfish party Ms AA threw for Assange after the alleged assault. Ask why Ms. AA didnt go to her local Police Station but travelled some considerable distance to the station where Krans worked, when Krans was on shift.

But to directly answer your notion about Swedish-United states treaty under ECHR and EU law; it is meaningless if the US accuse him of 'material support for terrorism' (see the 'other Australian' case of David Hicks case) whereby they will use the power they have already used in Sweden 'Extraordinary rendition', making the need for extradition or permission of the UK unlikely.

Highlighted the al-Zari and Agiz aExtraordinary rendition cases, Sweden was berated for its recalcitrance in failing to comply with a detailed list of measures that would indicate compliance with that decision, including: granting monetary compensation; permitting a new application for asylum in Sweden; and legislative changes prohibiting the use of diplomatic assurances. To date, Sweden has failed to implement any of these recommendations. And the way is still open for Extraordinary rendition.

Of course, I'm sure you would be among the first to complain if Assange ended up in the US facility where according to the US Administration torture never takes place, Guantanamo Bay. And while your apology would be sweet, what would be said of the sub-judice behaviour of media identities improperly criminalising an as yet uncharged defendant before due process had even begun.

Green is being disingenuous at best when referring to the Agiza and Al-Zery case. He mentions the compensation paid but fails to add that not a single prosecution has taken place of any Swedish politician or official who carried out their part of the rendition, nor has there been any request for extradition of the CIA officers who carried out serious sexual assaults on Agiza and Al-Zery.

In the 2006 case the Swedish military boarded a plane carrying rendition victims. Instead of releasing the captives and arresting the torturers, they let the flight take off.

In other words Sweden gives immunity from prosecution and extradition when it suits them. I'm afraid Green has shot himself in the foot yet again. The New Statesman should apologise for publishing his special pleading.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
John F. Kennedy

excellent post.

thank you for writing this, and for all your words on this case that have always been clear, reasoned, researched and evidenced.

I'm sorry that writing about the legal process of this case has led to so many personal attacks being made against you. FWIW, i've always found the posts useful!

Excellent post Mr. Green, as per usual.

Slightly off-topic, but I was wondering about this:

"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."

Hypothetically, if a suspected murderer escaped from the US and made it to Sweden, would this mean that Sweden would not be able to extradite him back to the states? (assuming that the state in which offence was comitted used the death penalty) It just seems somewhat counterintuitive.

Well back-peddled, otherwise what a waste of time.

The Pål Wrange quote cited here totally contradicts what Allen Green originally said. Wrange says "the Government always makes the final decision," whereas Allen Green had originally claimed that "any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court." That was Glenn Greenwald central argument and it has been skirted over here really quite disingenuously.

Mr Green clearly has wet dreams about Assange languishing in prison for doing the job most journalists couldn't do. This case has little to do with sexual allegations, most serious journalists understand this, even if they aren't willing to say it in public for fear of being labelled some kind of rape sympathiser.