We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr said today there was “no hint” of a plan to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States should he be sent to Sweden.
Assange, an Australian, took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London on Tuesday to seek asylum so as to avoid his extradition to Sweden on rape allegations, saying he fears Stockholm will hand him to the United States.
Carr said he had raised the issue of the possible extradition of Assange, a former computer hacker, to the US on two occasions with American officials.
“When I have raised it… I’ve received no hint that they have got a plan to extradite him to the US,” Carr told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Assange says he believes the United States wants to try him for divulging US secrets after WikiLeaks released a flood of classified US information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables.
But he has conceded there is no current US indictment against him.
“Of course not, at the moment the matter is before the grand jury,” he told Australian media on Friday. “Until it comes out of the grand jury there will not be such evidence afforded.”
Carr said he had no indication this was going to happen.
“There’s not the remotest evidence that that is the case. No US figure has confirmed that to us,” he said.
“I suppose you could argue they wouldn’t confirm it to us to the last moment. You could say that the justice department is proceeding on this and US officials in state or in a diplomatic mission like in Canberra wouldn’t be aware of it. Certainly that can’t be discounted as a possibility.
“But I can say, when I’ve said to a senior US official, ‘Assange is an Australian citizen, we’ve got an interest in this. Have you got plans to extradite him?’, they haven’t said they have got plans to extradite him.
“They haven’t been able to rule out that one corner of the American administration might not be considering it, but I would suspect that the US would not want to touch this.”
Carr said if the US, a close ally, had wanted to extradite Assange they could have done it during the two years he has been in Britain, a country with which Washington has a “robust extradition arrangement”.
Assange, 40, dramatically sought refuge in Ecuador’s London mission last week, saying he felt his country of birth had not protected him, a claim dismissed Sunday by Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.
“What Mr Assange and his supporters… seem to misunderstand is that there is nothing that the Australian government can currently do that it has not been doing,” she told Channel Ten’s Meet The Press.
Roxon said Canberra had only limited powers in the case because Assange — who she said she did not believe was “either a hero or a villain” — was not in Australia or charged with an Australian offence.
“He is at the moment subject to a complaint in Sweden, which is a criminal matter, and we believe Australians need to adhere to the criminal laws of other countries,” she said.
“That’s not abandoning an Australian, that’s actually just saying people have to comply with other countries’ laws.”
Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa is considering Assange’s request for asylum.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Like we can trust the US Justice System and state. Rendition, Kidnapping, torture etc. Yeah, sounds like you can trust them
if Julian Assange is innocent he needs to go to Sweeden and clear his name. The conspiracy theories are just that, theories. The accusations are real and serious.
Exactly, JayTee. What has he to hide ? He is nothing more than a totally self absorbed “me me me”. I wish he would just go away & stop being so goddamn annoying.
Assange has uncovered and exposed the realities of the unethical ways in which the people in charge of many of the world’s governments work. I used to dismiss conspiracy theorists but now, when the evidence of he dirty ways in which governments conduct their affairs is out, I am not surprised they want him silenced and punished. We need to know the realities of our governments so that when we vote, at least we are not uninformed of the truth. Without the truth, our liberty will slowly be eroded; we will be turned into debenture slaves, and only be able to choose between the lesser of two evils when we vote. Oops. Too late. I’d say Assange is probably the least naive person on the planet.
I wish the paranoia brigade would get their tin foil hats off and look at this for what it is. Julian Assange has been accused of raping a woman, and has called to Sweden to answer the allegations. No more, no less. He’s not above the law. He’s not a special case.
correct, Ally. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear. He is gone beyond irritating at this stage, I think.
I don’t know what to think of this case. On one hand it could be character assassination and on the other he could actually have raped some one. I think the former. Rape is a very serious allegation and even if the person is found innocent they still have that shadow hanging over them IMO.
Declan: And what about the fact that if he is tried for rape in Sweden, the trial will be in secret? In other words, the world won’t hear how Julian Assange refutes the charges.
In any open democracy, your trial is in public. Certain trails, esp of a sexual nature like rape & incest, are held in camera. That is to protect victims of sexual crimes. That is understandable. Sweden ( or Sverige ) is a democratic country & I’m assuming the “in camera” rules apply there, too. As regards Julian Ass himself – a self absorbed “drama queen” at this stage now, Paul.
Forgot to add that if anyone makes a false allegation against another, esp sexual allegations, they can also be prosecuted for that. Applies here & no doubt applies thruout the EU, Paul. This “conspiracy theory” nonsense is just that. Nonsense by a self absorbed moron, in my opinion.
I agree with the statement in your profile pic, too. Long gone past the time we threw out the old rule book & started afresh for the 21st century. Have a nice day, y’all !! But – sssshhhhh !!!! Don’t tell Julian Ass. It’s a “conspiracy”, u see !! Whoo-Hoo !!!
Of course, alleged victims of rape should be granted anonymity during trial and usually after too.That is a separate issue. The concern raised by Geoffrey Robertson QC, for example, is that the world won’t see how the accused, in this case Julian Assange, refutes the charges. Journalists may be barred from reporting on it. That’s what I mean by a secret trial.
Time will tell. If he is as innocent as he claims, go there & prove his innocence. By not doing so, there will always be a “?” mark over him. We’ll see. Cheers !!
Funny how this is all getting spun around to the conspiracy side of things. The US wanting to get their hands on him. This is a story about him raping someone and it doesn’t get a mention. Nice one lads.
@ Garion
He. Hasn’t. Been. Charged. With. Anything.
I agree with Garion that it is ridiculous that the allegations of sexual assault have been totally ignored. It is actually a relevant consideration.
I’m keeping an open mind at this point, but I think we should all admit that there are differing stories about when the women alleged rape, what exactly they specified, and this aspect of the allegations should not be tried on the internet.
Why would US officials tell the Australian Foreign Minister about a sealed indictment? I’m afraid secrecy is the name of the game for how the US government operates in many respects especially in relation to its “war against terror” and its “war against whistleblowers/investigative journalism”
The testimony of the two women who have allegedly accused Assange of sexual misconduct has been on the public record since January 2011. I say “allegedly” because there is plenty of evidence that it is the Swedish state prosecutor who is driving this nearly 2 year long “investigation” and not the two women concerned. You can read the testimony of the two women for yourselves. If Julian is charged and convicted of rape, it’ll be an insult to genuine rape victims the world over.
I think it’s incredibly insensitive for you to speak of insult to rape survivors (survivors, by the way) unless it is something you have experienced.
This is the reason many survivors advocates recommend the abolition of jury trials: some gullible people look online, find evidence that may or may not be authentic and prejudice the legal system by stating opinions on that basis.
Good grief, Nick. I write “rape victims” instead of “rape survivors” and this means I am somehow being insensitive to them?
As for discussing the case, for which Julian Assange has not been charged after nearly two years of “investigation”, you should first and foremost criticize 1) the Swedish police at Klara police station who leaked Julian Assange’s name and alleged crime of rape to the tabloid press on August 20th 2010, the very same day the two women concerned first went to Klara police station, before Julian Assange was even arrested, never mind charged, and 2)the Swedish state prosecutor who decided to reactivate the investigation into rape after the police at Klara police station dropped the investigation just days after the two women first went to Klara police station on August 20th 2010.
It’s not just your language, it’s the fact that you are perfectly happy with trying this case by internet. It’s disrespectful to everyone involved and you would be the first to get upset if someone online published an account of why they believed Assange was guilty. Your words are no less prejudicial.
Important to note that he hasn’t been charged with anything.
If it looks and smells and walks like a politically motivated stitch-up it probably is.
In Sweden, it’s customary to interview suspects before charging them. And I absolutely agree that he is most likely being pursued so vigilantly because of who he is. But do you think that necessarily means he didn’t do it? It could still be a political stitch up where they’re pursuing him because of who he is and he did it. Obviously, we need to keep an open mind on whether or not these allegations are true at this stage. It’s almost certainly political, but that doesn’t mean the allegations themselves should not be taken seriously and investigated.
I would oppose his extradition to America, but I think the rape charges should always be taken seriously and investigated. Two wrongs don’t make a right and potential misconduct by the prosecutors doesn’t mean that it’s all right for people like Paul to try this case by internet, especially when Paul himself has previously spread lies about the nature of Swedish sexual offences law and free trial rights.
And sorry, to be precise: allegations. I meant charges in the sense that these women have brought charges to the police, but I should correct that to read he has not been officially charged, only sought in the traditional Swedish face to face interview.
It could still be a political stitch up where theyâre pursuing him because of who he is and he did it
Nick: Julian Assange was already interviewed by the Swedish police at the end of August 2010.
Nick: I am not being prejudicial or trying this case. I am merely offering my opinion. Julian Assange hasn’t been charged with anything. And, no , I wouldn’t be upset if someone offered the opinion that Julian Assange is guilty of rape. They’re entitled to their opinion too.
Nick: Where have I spread lies?
Because I quoted this from the following webpage?
http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html
“Of all the signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights, Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial). It also has the highest rate of adverse rulings when it comes to the fair trial.”
Which is patently untrue, according to the ECHR’s own data. You’ve been told this and still only cite websites that are biased towards Assange. I can’t believe you’re so naive as to only swallow what Assange defence has told you rather than keeping an open mind and considering that his defence also have motivation to misrepresent facts.
I’m going to question everyone’s motivation involved and keep an open mind, while you are willing to believe anything Justice4Assange tells you and repeat it on the internet.
To be honest, I’ve been incredibly disappointed in how Assange’s defence have chosen to handle this situation. Rather than simply point out their frustrations in the handling of this case, they’ve made untrue claims about Swedish sexual offences law in general and have chosen the path of choosing to smear the women involved. If they just stuck to the facts, a lot more people would have respect for their integrity in the handling of this. Which is not to say he’s guilty (again, I’m keeping an open mind), just that I’m disappointed that someone I admired and agreed with politically has chosen to go down this route to combat these allegations.
To be honest, Iâve been incredibly disappointed in how Assangeâs defence have chosen to handle this situation
Heh, are we comparing Assange to Ruhama?
Again: two wrongs don’t make a right. The failings of the Swedish justice system don’t make the tact of trying to mislead people about Swedish law and launching a swear campaign against these women right.
Apologies, smear. Android!
There is no point continuing this discussion as thejournal keeps removing my comments. The last two comments by Nick Beard were in response to my lengthy comment which thejournal subsequently removed. I e-mailed the author of the article 16 hours ago or so to ask for an explanation (because I genuinely have no idea why it was removed) and thus far I have received no reply.
I’ll just say two things however. Julian Assange is a Western Dissident. Western countries are not immune to political persecution. It’s not just something that happens in China or other “third world countries” or countries with tinpot dictators or countries that are run by a political party that has “Muslim” or “Islamic” in its name. The battle to save Julian Assange from rendition to the USA is a battle to save freedom of speech itself. It is a battle to save democracy itself.
When some on the Journal said the CIA were arming Syrian rebels the yells of ‘Tinfoil hat’ predictably rained down.
So does be expect to live the rest of his life in a foreign embassy? As soon as he steps outside the door he is going to be arrested for breaching bail and now has very little chance of appeal to EU court.
“War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength”
have your say