6 ms·
The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradit
by danieltillett 11y ago
The whole situation has nothing to do with the alleged crimes - he would be out of jail by now if he was even convicted. It is all about if he is to be extradited to the USA or not. If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today.
- alkonaut 11y ago> If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA So the catch-22 is that he says he is happy to go to Sweden in case he is given guarantees of not being extradited, but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. What swedish authorities could (and should) do in this situation is just make some really broad statements about how even though they have agreements with the USA, no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers.
- Tomte 11y agoAs a European country Sweden does not extradite in case the extradited person faces the death penalty.
- runarb 11y agoSweden has done some questionable extraditions in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
- alkonaut 11y agoThe previous "CIA scandal" is still very well remembered here, and is just another reason that it won't be repeated. The political fallout would be massive.
- vacri 11y agoIf it happened right now, it'd be forgotten amongst the migrant crisis. Assange is soap opera. Migrant crisis is literally at doorsteps, and has Sweden closing borders.
- belorn 11y agoLike the political fallout of downing the presidential plane of an other nation, breaking the standing rules of immunity and inviolability. No nation, especially three of the largest nations in Europe at the same time, would ever dare to do that. Political fallout from actions taken in the war against whistleblowers has so far been quite minimal.
- Ressuder 11y agoWhile that was a regrettable error, you can't really compare repatration with extradition.
- ryanlol 11y agoI'm not entirely sure why that's relevant, it only protects Assange from being executed.
- halviti 11y agoWhat Swedish authorities should do is just interview him remotely and then decide whether to prosecute. Case closed.
- k-mcgrady 11y agoDidn't they come to the embassy a few weeks ago to interview him?
- ryanlol 11y agoFew weeks ago is also when UN announced the decision to state parties.
- hedwall 11y agoThey agreed to do an interview at the embassy, then the embassy declined.
- Tepix 11y agoThat's a rather incomplete summary of the story, if you are interested in the topic you should make sure to read the various reports about this whole affair.
- blowski 11y agoIs Julian Assange a whistle blower or a reporter on whistleblowers?
- pessimizer 11y agoA whistleblower is a reporter.
- blowski 11y agoWhen I hear the term "whistleblower" I assume the person works inside the organisation on whom they are 'blowing the whistle'.
- ryanlol 11y agoAnd the US would just say "we won't execute Assange"
- bb88 11y ago"...we'll just lock him up with convicted gang members and rapists."
- rmc 11y ago> no one would ever be extradited from Sweden to any country in case they risked facing the death penalty and/or are whistle blowers. Capital punishment is against the European Convention of Human Rights. No EU (well Council of Europe) country is legally allowed extradite anyone where they would face the death penalty. That's been the law for years. There has never been any question of Assange being extradited and executed, because you can't extradite someone in that case. Cripes, even Russia has stopped capital punishment because of the ECHR.
- crapiola 11y agoPortugal, a member of the EU has an extradition treaty with India, where criminals can be killed by the state. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-Portugal-sign-extradition-treaty/articleshow/1143722.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-Portugal-sign... Abu Salem was actually extradited from Portugal to India before this treaty existed
- Tomte 11y agoThat's not a refutation of what he said. EU countries also extradite to the US. But only after the US assure that in the specific case the death penalty will be neither sought nor imposed.
- kiiski 11y agoA quote from the link: > The treaty with Portugal comes after India accepted its two main conditions that the extradited person would not face either a death sentence or life imprisonment beyond 25 years.
- tveita 11y agoThey're not supposed to be extradited if they will be tortured either, but prolonged solitary detention is not considered torture for reasons of political convenience. (No one wants to call the U.S. out on their extensive ongoing humans rights violations.)
- kafkaesq 11y agoEven Russia has stopped capital punishment. That is, claimed to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
- Tepix 11y agoThis isn't about the death penalty. The US would probably guarantee that Assange will not be sentenced to death, then they can put him into solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
- vidarh 11y ago> but no such guarantee is possible under Swedish law. There is no legal impediment to for the Swedish government preventing them from refusing extradition. What makes you think there is?
- rmc 11y ago> If Sweden says they won't send him to the USA then he will walk out today. Can the US President give a guarantee that the Supreme Court will decide a case in a certain manner? Because that's what that means. Sweden is a country with laws, and an independent judiciary. Sweden has extradition treaty with the US (as do many people). If the USA follows a procedure, then the Swedish courts must hand someone over (and vice versa). That's what the (Swedish) law says. You're asking the Swedish government to guarantee that the Swedish courts won't decide a particular case in a particular manner.
- jellicle 11y agoExtradition is a political process, not a judicial one. It is the U.S. Department of State that decides who gets extradited from the U.S.A., for example. If they want you extradited you're gone, if they don't you aren't. In Sweden it's the Government (prime minister, effectively) that decides, not any court. The idea that there's some sort of independent, non-partisan process for extraditions is completely, totally false. It is entirely political.
- dagw 11y agoIn Sweden it's the Government (prime minister, effectively) that decides, not any court. Only in one direction. If the Supreme Court blocks an extradition as illegal under Swedish law then the Government cannot overrule that judgement (though I suppose they could change the law and ask the country to refile the extradition request). They can however refuse to extradite someone even if the courts rule the extradition legal.
- Tepix 11y agoEvery government can deny an extradition for political or human rights reasons.
- krotton 11y agoAnd it would be an absurd and a clear indication of lack of any kind of independence if they could not.
- tptacek 11y agoThe exact same thing is true of Roman Polanski, who long ago would have been free in the US had he not fled his sentence after being convicted. The only reason Polanski still has detention in the US hanging over his head is that he evaded the sentence.
- danieltillett 11y agoI used to think that Polanski’s case was rather open and shut (what he did was not excusable in any way), but the way the judge behaved in his case was rather disturbing.