Monday, February 13, 2012


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever been filed against him. No judge has demanded of his captors that they produce 'probable cause' that he has --in fact --committed any crime of any sort! He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' may simply decree one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. Officially, he is not accused of a specific crime. He is --simply --a political prisoner, a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.
--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims
This is an outrage! If Julian Assange can be imprisioned though no charges have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.
Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.
--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).
Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law

It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him heard together with the probable cause that he violated any laws whatsoever. If the 'authorities' cannot produce the 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!


damien said...

"Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice." -- Dinah Rose QC.

I've followed this closely, Len, particularly the latest appeal. The reality is that the EU law, ratified by Britain, under which Assange's extradition has been sought, was enacted to allow for broadly different judicial systems and practices. Many European countries assign to the prosecutor an investigative role especially in the early stages, and their warrants are accepted as valid court orders by the EU. Further, such warrants can be issued merely for the purposes of an investigation; it doesn't have to be an arrest as such. The matter is further compounded by the UK enabling legislation where the intention of the legislators was quite clearly that EU arrest warrants would need to be issued by what we would regard as an independent court or judge. Both the EU and UK laws on this matter are a complete dog's breakfast, illogical and unsatisfactory, and I think Assange's current judges understand that. The problem is that if they allow Assange's appeal on its merits (as I believe they should), then the whole EU extradition treaty with the UK falls apart as unworkable. So I'm not sure he'll get a win.

Sweden signed a treaty with the US in 1984 to allow for a process called temporary surrender (sometimes called ’conditional release’) which allows Sweden to hand over Assange to the US if they agree. Crucially, no court processes are involved; it's an executive decision only. Here's how the EU explains it:

"[Temporary surrender] facilitates the orderly and efficient prosecution of a person sought in two jurisdictions by allowing the temporary transfer of the person to the Requesting State for prosecution, when that person is subject to proceedings (either prosecution or service of a sentence) in the Requested State. The transfer is subject to conditions agreed to in advance of the transfer." - Council of the European Union - Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements.

The US has been using this type of agreement to get drug traffickers into the US for prosecution -- first, lure them into Panama, and then, issue a 'temporary surrender' request with the Panamanian government. This is a well used legal ploy.

Sweden has never refused US requests of this kind in the past and given their political leanings they would be unlikely to do so in the case of Assange.

damien said...

Enter Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, the architect of Bush's stolen 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2004 he assisted the Republican candidate for governor in Alabama to unseat the then incumbent, Don Siegelman, by organizing trumped up bribery charges against him. That's the sworn evidence of an Alabama Republican Party insider who blew the lid on it. Siegelman did 7 years in jail. And this is the same Karl Rove -- Bush's political 'fixer' -- who sacked US Federal attorneys who refused to institute contrived criminal proceedings against Democratic Party candidates.

Assange's arrest in Sweden has many of the hallmarks of the Siegelman case. Rove has strong ties to Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and has been advising him since he resigned as Bush White House political adviser in mid-2007. This followed the scandalous Bush mid-term political purge of nine of the nation's 93 powerful US attorneys for failing to implement politically based corruption charges against Democratic Party electoral candidates.

WikiLeaks has created a problem for Sweden and its prime minister by revealing a 2008 cable disclosing that its executive branch had asked American officials to keep intelligence-gathering "informal" to avoid Swedish parliamentary scrutiny.

This also, from Karl Rove's official biography: "Before Karl became known as 'The Architect' of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, non-partisan causes, and non-profit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional, and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden."

Recall also that Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives in Dec 2001 for transfer to Cairo and that Sweden subsequently served as a transit point for other detainees renditioned to US torture destinations.

With this background in mind it is far from fanciful to suggest that Sweden will forward Assange to the US in response to any trumped up or inflated US criminal charges, Assange's prospects being a lifetime in a US prison.

PS. On a personal note, happy New Year, Len.

Unknown said...

damien said...

Further, such warrants can be issued merely for the purposes of an investigation; it doesn't have to be an arrest as such.

Sophistry ---and that 'they' have gotten away with it speak volumes about the educational systems and NOT just in the U.S. It's all a dodge to avoid 'due process of law'.

If Assange can be detained, so can you and I for merely disagreeing with the 'establishment'.

So I'm not sure he'll get a win.

Nor me! The deck is stacked and the rationale behind it all is transparently contradictory to 'western' jurisprudence since Magna Carta!

Not just Assange ---but ALL of us are sorely fucked, fucked over, and will eventually be enslaved by corporate 'masters'.

BTW ---great to see your posts again.