4 ms·

"Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole proce

by cmdkeen 11y ago

"Then he would certainly be extradited to the USA" Now you're the one using absolutes that no-one can be certain of. One of the key points about the whole process is that Sweden can't pre-emptively say what they would do if the US requested extradition because they haven't. The one extradition case we have seen play out, to a country famed for its liberal criminal justice policy (Sweden) from a country famed for the rule of law (UK) gave him many opportunities to test the process through the courts. That was even through the European Arrest Warrant process which is supposed to streamline extradition processes. If, and it is an if, Assange were to be subject to an extradition request from the US he would be able to challenge it through the courts. He wouldn't face the death penalty as European countries don't extradite under those circumstances. Similarly prison conditions can be argued and again European courts can require commitments from the US regarding conditions and treatment before they would approve an extradition. The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. Finally it is also worth saying that Assange has probably also shot himself in the foot if he ever did face extradition to the US. He was bailed in the UK (where there is a presumption of bail) and this able to flee to the embassy. If he were arrested again facing extradition to the US he would be much less likely to be granted bail and so unable to claim political asylum on a much more sympathetic case.

vidarh 11y ago
> The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Apart from academically, it is largely irrelevant whether or not this is likely to happen. What is relevant is that there are good reasons why Assange might genuinely believe it likely to happen, which means there is good reason that his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy was requested in good faith rather than "just" to avoid a Swedish court case with a low risk of conviction and short sentences were he to be convicted (he'd have been out a long time ago if he had been extradited and convicted in Sweden).
zanny 11y ago
Here's the secret - Sweden does not like him either. He could appeal it up the courts all he wants but when you are in a position where you expose secrets the the public sovereign bodies do not want known you are going to be a target. Civil rights and due process are for when you have not pissed off the leaders of multiple nations and their intelligence agencies by showing off their dirty laundry. If I was from Sweden, went to the US, shoplifted, and got an extradition request because I committed a crime, I would not need to fear for my life nearly as much as Assange needs to. His is the kind of case where he "accidentally" ended up a plane to the US and "accidentally" disappeared after he arrived, and then six months later the FBI say they found his body halfway across the country in a forest mauled to pieces by an "unknown predator".

by cmdkeen 11y ago

vidarh 11y ago

> The Gary McKinnon case is illuminating into the thinking behind extradition from Europe to the US. It is illuminating about why Assange might feel safe in the UK compared to a country that his own leaks have demonstrated continued to host CIA rendition flights for years after the government said they would stop after being caught illegally black-bagging political asylum seekers and handing them to the CIA. UK courts actually do stand up against US extradition requests. In Sweden, on the other hand, it is not clear that the government will abide by Swedish law.

cmdkeen 11y ago
Here's the kicker - the UK's permission would be needed if Sweden went on to consider extraditing to the US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382 It's because we're still vicariously liable because we're handing him into the power of another country. So not only would Swedish courts be an appeal process the UK's would as well. Plus it is worth making the point that it is inconceivable that the USA would "black bag" Assange. Kidnapping a high profile Australian citizen from a European country while he was still being protected by the UK legal system is beyond international incident territory, the repercussions would be immense. If the US wanted to illegally abduct him making him the focus of the international media and several legal systems is a really bad precursor. If anything they want to put him on trial and make an example out of him, not apply car batteries to him in some Egyptian hell hole. A trial means a legal means of getting him before a US court, which means following established extradition processes.
- vidarh 11y ago
  Apart from academically, it is largely irrelevant whether or not this is likely to happen. What is relevant is that there are good reasons why Assange might genuinely believe it likely to happen, which means there is good reason that his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy was requested in good faith rather than "just" to avoid a Swedish court case with a low risk of conviction and short sentences were he to be convicted (he'd have been out a long time ago if he had been extradited and convicted in Sweden).

zanny 11y ago

Here's the secret - Sweden does not like him either. He could appeal it up the courts all he wants but when you are in a position where you expose secrets the the public sovereign bodies do not want known you are going to be a target. Civil rights and due process are for when you have not pissed off the leaders of multiple nations and their intelligence agencies by showing off their dirty laundry. If I was from Sweden, went to the US, shoplifted, and got an extradition request because I committed a crime, I would not need to fear for my life nearly as much as Assange needs to. His is the kind of case where he "accidentally" ended up a plane to the US and "accidentally" disappeared after he arrived, and then six months later the FBI say they found his body halfway across the country in a forest mauled to pieces by an "unknown predator".