I am in the habit of visiting the website of Aftonbladet, a leading Swedish newspaper, once every week. Primarily, this seemingly senseless exercise is to retain my less-than-perfect command over the language, and not so much for the news. In consonance with this practice, I visited the site yesterday and was in for a big surprise.

It appeared that Aftonbladet had decided it was time for a “gloves-off” approach and abandoned its civilised style. The subject in question was Julian Assange who is holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and was granted asylum by that country yesterday. Some of the expressions used, in my reckoning, were distinctly profane and disappointed me enormously. One can readily understand the anger the Swedes must feel over the insinuation that the Swedish justice system cannot be relied upon to serve justice. Even the frustration over the possibility of Assange facing a trial becoming remote can be understood.

I am one of those who have had the opportunity to observe the Swedish justice system very closely and can vouch that it is one of the fairest in the world. Justice is readily available, judgments are delivered in record time and there is a very active mechanism to deal with any perceived miscarriage of justice.

Having said that I am not too sure that Assange’s concerns are entirely unfounded.

Let me declare at the outset that I was Assange’s unabashed admirer and applauded him for what he had been able to realise. I also happen to believe that rape is a heinous offence and anyone who has been formally charged must be brought to trial.

But let us sit back and reflect on what Assange has been saying. From what I have been reading in the newspapers, Assange has been seeking a reassurance from the United Kingdom government that if extradited to Sweden, he would not be handed over to the United States government as there is a very real possibility that he might be subjected to torture and worse still be subjected to death penalty. And to me it does not sound like an unreasonable assumption.

To understand Assange’s position, we have to recapitulate on what he has done and the impact that it has had. Most governments, even the most democratic ones get distinctly queasy when they are caught indulging in actions which run counter to their stated aims and statutes. Assange has succeeded in embarrassing most governments – especially the US government – through his disclosures. One only has to look at the language employed by the powers-that-be in the US to conclude that they regard him as public enemy number one. Many draconian measures have been publicly advocated for him not just by fringe but also mainstream politicians.

And even before Wikileaks emerged on the public horizon, we were made aware of the extent to which the US was prepared to go to in regard to those it regarded as adversaries. Guantanamo tortures are not a figment of imagination. And Mary Robinson, the past United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights otherwise known for her pro American views came out with a scathing indictment of the US methods.

In light of all this, are there not reasonable grounds for Assange to feel apprehensive?

United States has on its statute, the Espionage Act which was enacted in 1917 during the First World War. Under the Act it is a crime:

▪   To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

▪   To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

Even a cursory perusal of the Act would convince any objective observer of its sinister potential for abuse. And Brendan Manning, the soldier identified as Assange’s main source has been charged under this Act.

To be fair, the US is not the only country to have draconian legislation of this nature under the garb of national security.

In the UK, a senior civil servant, Clive Ponting was charged under the Official Secrets Act – the equivalent of the Espionage Act in Britain. His crime? He had passed on some classified documents to a legislator – Tam Dalyell – to furnish proof that the Thatcher government was indulging in misleading the Parliament and the population. After a lengthy trial, the judge asked the jury to convict him. The jury disregarded this advice and acquitted him. The judge’s summing up was described as “silly” by none other than Lord Denning who had just relinquished his position as the Master of the Rolls and the decision was hailed as the triumph of the jury system.

There have been several instances of the British tendency to invoke the Official Secrets Act in even the most innocuous cases. As it stands, under the garb of national security one can be prosecuted even for discussing what appears on a menu-sheet in a ministerial dinner. Cathy Massiter, Peter Wright, and Richard Tomlinson would testify to the oppressive potential of this Act.

The Indian government has also not been entirely upfront in its invocation of the Official Secrets Acts (enacted here in 1923) as the Iftikhar Geelani case demonstrates. Ireland, Hong Kong, Canada, and Malaysia have also enacted their version of this Act and none of them have in their usage come out smelling of roses.

Additionally, UK also has the Naval Discipline Act enacted in 1957 which makes it a crime to “spy on overseas bases and ships”. And until the early Eighties, this Act could invoke the death penalty.

Assange has succeeded in shaking the entire system and thus has made some very powerful enemies.

“In a free society, there is a continuing public interest that the workings of government should be open to scrutiny and criticism.” Thus spoke Lord Goff, one of the leading jurists of Britain in the last century. And we all know that despite this sentiment and the enactment of the Freedom of Information Acts and Right to Information Acts, there is a culture of secrecy that pervades governmental dealings.

The next point in this entire debate is whether it is legitimate on part of Assange to impose conditions on his repatriation which has been ruled on by the Law Lords and whether the UK can negotiate with Sweden on this count.

There are plenty of precedents to suggest that the extraditing country has an obligation to ensure that the person extradited would not be subject to certain measures it may regard as inimical. Let us take the case of Abu Salem. The Portuguese authorities realised that capital punishment was on the Indian statute. It obtained a reassurance from India that he was not going to be subjected to the death penalty and that he was only going to be tried for the offence for which he was being extradited before India was given custody. I believe there is some maneuvering on this in progress but that is not germane to this issue.

And we are all aware how many countries have refused extradition point-blank when the receiving country has capital punishment on its statute.

Perusing all these facts it would seem that Assange’s demands are not that unreasonable. Even his trepidation that the Swedish justice process may be super-ceded by the exigencies and demands of statecraft do not seem all that far-fetched.

But having said all that, I very strongly believe that the only way Assange can get his taint washed is to be exonerated by the Swedish court if he is innocent – as he claims. It is, therefore, in his supreme interest to ensure that once these conditions are met, he presents himself for a fair trial.

Image Source: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/5287303391/]