Sweden may have dropped its investigation, but from within his little bit of Ecuador, Assange's "proper war is just commencing", writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.
IT HAD BEEN, from the start, a cruel wait-and-see game.
Lacking logic and consistency, the Swedish effort to extradite Julian Assange from the United Kingdom, not for formal charges but the pretext of questioning him over sexual assault and rape, collapsed on Friday.
Abandoning the investigation had been a logistical matter, as they had been unable to serve the Australian with allegations during an interview at the Ecuadorean embassy in November 2016.
It is worth pointing out that getting that interview had been a point of persistent refusal and stonewalling from the Swedish prosecutor’s office. Communications had also been repeatedly made by the WikiLeaks legal team that they were open to a video interview from the start.
... no longer possible to continue the preliminary investigation pursuant to Chapter 23, Section 4, second paragraph, of the Code of Judicial Procedure'. [Keeping in mind] the facts and circumstances of the case, executing the decision to extradite him to Sweden is not expected to be possible in the foreseeable future.
When pressed about the issue of whether the U.S. still had a thick and clumsy hand in matters, denial followed. At no point had figures in Washington applied pressure to the case. But Isgren and Ny did claim that an email from a figure claiming to work for the FBI was received in March inquiring about Assange, though both claimed it insufficiently clear to draw any conclusions from.
Indifferent to the inquiry, the prosecutor’s office simply referred the matter to information already available on the agency’s website. Showing the sort of care they have had throughout the entire process, the inquiring email was then deleted.
Little wonder then, that Assange shot back, telling supporters and journalists that Sweden – and the European Union more broadly – had made indefinite detention a key policy:
'There is no time limit that someone can be detained without charge. That is not how we expect a civilised state to behave.'
Professor Mads Andenæs, chair of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, claimed the collapse of the prosecution case was:
' ... a victory for the rule of law. The warrant was contestable. There were dissents in both the UK and Swedish supreme courts.” Andenæs also noted that the UK Supreme Court had trouble with “several aspects of the extradition request.'
As had the UN Working Group itself, which found for Assange last year.
Within Sweden itself, the legal fraternity was also getting stroppy at the lethargic, asthmatic efforts to push the case. The Swedish Supreme Court had also issued a warning to prosecutors that they needed to speed up efforts or drop the case.
With haste and speculation, the Swedish exit from the Assange equation came with questions as to whether he would complement it with his own exit from the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
Exclaimed Ecuador’s foreign minister Guillaume Long on Twitter:
'The European arrest no longer holds. The UK must now grant safe passage to Mr Julian Assange.'
6) The European Arrest Warrant no longer holds. The UK must now grant safe passage to Mr Julian Assange— Guillaume Long (@GuillaumeLong) May 19, 2017
Nothing of the sort — a promise was made by British police that he would be arrested the moment he steps out.
The hook upon which to hang the case against Assange remains his decision to defy UK judicial opinion in June 2012, when he took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy after the Supreme Court handed its final decision ordering his surrender to Sweden, pursuant to the flawed European arrest warrant.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police dispelled any doubts:
'Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on 29 June 2012.'
The Met are 'obliged to execute that warrant should be he leave the Embassy'.
This keeps the geopolitical dimension relevant. Assange in the hands of the British authorities will be a far easier catch for U.S. agents keen to pursue WikiLeaks on charges relating to the disclosure of classified material, despite the seemingly impregnable defences of the free speech amendment.
As Assange claimed in a grimly delivered press address from the balcony of the Ecuadorean embassy, looking every bit the modelled out information soldier, his detractors in the United States Government have little interest in observing the first amendment freedoms of the press for WikiLeaks and its associates.
The Central Intelligence Agency’s Mike Pompeo has deemed WikiLeaks a “hostile non-state intelligence agency”, which precludes conventional press protections.
“We can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for.”
The continuing struggle, one between the guerrilla warriors of the information and transparency movement pitted against the abuses of the Deep State, will continue. As will the barnacle determination of Assange in occupying that little bit of Ecuador in Knightsbridge.
“The proper war is just commencing.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Get the whole truth. Subscribe to IA.