Assange and the European Arrest Warrant
Bernard Porter
Yesterday, following the debate – or rather non-debate – on the European Arrest Warrant in the House of Commons, and the press commentary on it, I was surprised that the Julian Assange case wasn’t cited as one of the more contentious instances of the warrant’s use.
Assange’s extradition was granted on the say-so of a Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, without any charge being laid, and on the basis of flimsy evidence, much of which he was not allowed to see. This was after he had voluntarily submitted to examination by the Stockholm police, after which he was let go and allowed to go to Britain. Ny stepped in afterwards. Assange objected to returning to Sweden at that point because he feared he might then be re-extradited to the United States to be tried in connection with his WikiLeaks revelations. (I think that’s unlikely, but I wouldn’t rule it out.) He might also have feared certain features of the Swedish legal system which appear less than satisfactory to Anglo-Saxon eyes, and which many Swedish legalists are critical of too. In this case it seemed to me that the EAW, originally promoted as a way of protecting us from terrorism and organised crime was being abused, as ‘counter-terrorism’ measures often are.
I wrote a short comment mentioning this on Shami Chakrabarti’s excellent piece in yesterday’s Guardian, only to find it deleted by a moderator for not abiding by ‘community standards’. Probing further, I found that other mentions of Assange had also been deleted; and that because of my perseverance in trying to raise the issue three times, any comments I post are now ‘pre-moderated’. I find that puzzling (and upsetting: it seems to place me in the company of trolls). All the ‘Assange’ comments, including mine, were polite, non-racist, non-sexist, non-defamatory and relevant; though the moderator apparently thinks not. He explained in an email to me that ‘the Assange case is off topic in the context of the article in which you were commenting’. He also suspected my comments of being ‘obviously commercial or otherwise spam-like’ because I included links in them. All very odd.
More seriously, the controversy over the EAW is being presented primarily as a pro or anti-EU thing, which is why, as I understand it, Labour will be voting for it in the debate they have scheduled for next Wednesday. Certain parts of the EAW should be a source of worry to all liberals and libertarians, and opposition to them must not be hijacked by Ukip and Tory Europhobes. At the very least Theresa May should be able to provide solid assurances that the EAW will only be used in the future in the most serious, urgent and convincing cases. And maybe consider reviewing the English court’s judgment in Assange’s case, so permitting his liberation from his (no doubt pleasant enough) Ecuadorian prison.
Comments
Andrew O’Hagan says he promised his publisher he would not give interviews or talk about the Assange project. He knew, he says, the biography would “walk the unstable border between fiction and non-fiction.”
In his London Review of Books article "Ghosting," O’Hagan writes:
“One day recently (Assange) asked me to come in to talk to him...I could see he was disturbed...
‘I’ve (heard)...you’re preparing a book,’ he said...
I told him I’d made no plans to write a book...
‘Just tell me first if you’re going to,’ he said. ‘Come to me first.’
"I said I would....I left that night (knowing)...I was now making him into a figment of my imagination...that was perhaps all he could ever really be for me.”
O’Hagan told Assange he was not going to write a book. But he published his essay in the LRB, assuring himself of many more readers than if he had.
Does O'Hagan's article walk the unstable border between fiction and non-fiction? To what extent is the character we read about a figment of Mr. O’Hagan’s imagination?
This tends to confirm my feeling that much of the LRB is published unsubbed nowadays. Come back Karl Miller!
You also need to check the masthead of the LRB for the Ghosting issue together with the mastheads of the two issues either side. Notice anything odd about the membership of the Editorial Board? Andrew O'Hagan resigned from and then reinstated himself to the Board for one LRB issue only. Some might say that was a mechanism whereby AOH could pay himself a very large amount of money for a hatchet job on Assange. Mr O'Hagan is not a reliable narrator and his assessment of Mr Assange should be viewed in that light.
As the project's researcher, can you clarify whether the factual errors in O'Hagan's Ghosting concerning Nortel, the Arab Spring, the Guardian's leak of the unredacted Cablegate, the 'sale' of Cablegate to Al-Jazeera, etc etc - set out in the Hazel Press article - are based on your own research work? It would be helpful to know to what extent O'Hagan utilised, or ignored, the previous research he had access to when writing Ghosting.
Also, can you shed any more light on the discussions O'Hagan held in 2011 with Paul Greengrass about selling the film rights to the ghostwritten autobiography, referenced in the Hazel Press piece? Why did these negotiations break down? How much money was O'Hagan hoping to make by selling the book rights to Hollywood? Answers to these questions would be helpful to an analysis of Andrew O'Hagan's motivations behind that "piece of dogged and unrewarding reporting about Assange in an LRB article last March".
The contract J signed with Canongate (for an advance) specified a delivery date for a first draft. That's how book contracts work, as J's extremely experienced agent would have told him. It's why Canongate paid J that large advance.
On the subject of 'security' (in a bizarre role-reversal, J evokes this concern with the enthusiasm, and the vagueness, of a GCHQ official), if he had wanted to exclude something from the manuscript he should have specified its exclusion. In all the countless conversations we had with J about the book once the draft was written, he never once raised a specific concern about security related to its actual content. (He did mention privacy, but then why sign a contract to write a personal autobiography?)
I wasn't present when J et al hacked into the Egyptian mobile phone system (via a server based outside of Egypt); Andrew's report of the incident is his own. It's possible that J has hacked into Nortel more than once in his life, don't you think? The fact he did it in the 90s doesn't make an account of him doing it in 2011 any less true. Why, incidentally, are you keen for this not to have happened - it's one of the few points in 'Ghosting' when O'Hagan expresses great admiration for J. I remember him enthusing about it at the time.
Nor was I present for the negotiation with Al-Jazeera, though I'm interested to know what evidence you think for have for implying such a negotiation didn't happen.
In 2011 there were discussions between various parties about a possible film version of J's autobiography. For instance I remember J and another Wikileaks member of staff regaling Andrew and I with an account of a conversation they'd recently had with a Hollywood producer on the subject. J was hardly hesitant, at that stage, about the idea of a film. I've no idea what sums of money might have been involved, but the bulk of any fee would have gone to J as it had already been agreed he'd be the copyright holder of the book.
O’Hagan often mentioned his love of "fiction" in relation to a writing factually. After endlessly re-scripting the prosaic into sensation, what else could he say?
Another issue made complex in your JJ reply, regards security. Privacy is security. In our post-Snowden world, one would hope a researcher for a book concerning WikiLeaks would understand that.
Also, if you want to know how successful J's preferred bio format would have been, read the reviews of 'When Google Met WikiLeaks.
So, Assange, you agree, was the copyright holder of the book which means - it being an autobiography, and him being the subject of said autobiography - he ought to have had some say in its direction, content and structure, don't you think? Yet, in passing the unfinished manuscript to your employers Canongate (and it seems Assange was unaware you were their employee, is that right?) you ensured that the subject of a ghostwritten autobiography lost any ability to shape HIS OWN BOOK.
By the way, as you are so knowledgeable about this type of book publishing - it being your chosen career path - can you tell me how often publishers such as Canongate refuse authors any leeway on deadlines if the author isn't happy with a first draft and wishes to re-structure their book/autobiography? I doubt most respectable publishers would want to get a reputation amongst authors for being so rigid as to force a writer to publish something they weren't happy to put their name to.
Can you also confirm that Canongate's entire advance was paid straight into Mr Assange's lawyers' escrow account, and, having lost his dispute with them concerning their overcharging - a whopping £600,000 for a single Magistrates bail hearing! - he never saw a single penny out of the whole sorry saga?
Nortel, a telecommunications company based in Canada, doesn't operate in Egypt or run Egypt's mobile phone network, that's why there would be absolutely no reason for Wikileaks to hack Nortel to help out the Arab Spring protesters.
The evidence I have that negotiations between Wikileaks and Al-Jazeera to buy Cablegate didn't happen in January 2011, as Andrew O'Hagan says they did, is the fact that Al-Jazeera had already published all they wished from Cablegate as one of Wikileaks' 100 media partners in November and December of the previous year. For free. The January WikiLeaks/Al-Jazeera negotiations were for a television series, presumably along the same lines as that which ultimately got licensed to RT as Julian Assange's The World Tomorrow.
God I miss the News Chronicle!
Assange has alienated a lot of powerful people - on the right and on the left - for quite disparate reasons; and Bernard Porter must have theories or good guesses about what is going on behind the scenes at the Guardian to produce this outcome.
What worries me more is the way these sorts of controversy surrounding Assange (the ‘sex’ accusations are another) may discourage the MPs who are going to matter on Wednesday from questioning the scope of the European Arrest Warrant. That is the substantive question here, and a vitally important one. It would be a pity if discussion of that were to sink into the mud of the row over O’Hagen’s role. The debate over it here I’ve found fascinating. But it mustn’t be allowed to distract from the immediate issue of principle.
I think the tide may be turning, though, since Hugo Swire's very pointed "invitation" to the Swedish prosecutor in FCO Question Time in the House of Commons a week or so ago that the "UK will do absolutely everything in our power to facilitate that. Indeed, we would actively welcome it"
I agree ad hominens are uncalled for, and hope your comment wasn't directed at me - I don't recall using any myself (unless "suing lawyers, fat chance, eh?" counts as one) so perhaps it was directed at someone else? If I'm guilty, I apologise.
But the point I wanted to clarify was that I think I may have misled you a bit. Thinking about it, I recall seeing Mark Stephens outside the Belmarsh court, so perhaps Stephens Finer were still representing Julian Assange up until the first extradition hearing before Justice Riddle. Even so, £600,000 is still massive overcharging. I can only assume that Assange agreed to have his autobiography advance paid direct into an escrow account set up to cover his legal costs because, at that stage, he had no idea that his lawyers would go on to present him with a bill like that. Naive of him, maybe, but not unbelievably naive. He's an Australian, remember, so what would he know about UK law firms? He would just trust the recommendation made to him by the media partners he was working with at the time (before he fell out with them so spectacularly, that is). Stephens Finer is a media specialist law firm, after all. As I said, Jennifer Robinson made it clear publicly that she had left the firm in protest at their overcharging of Assange.