6 ms·

I think the key issue is that the Swedish prosecutor (until recently) made no effort to question him in the embassy. Given how badly the US wants Assange, and

• rtpg 11y ago
  Pretty much every "why don't they do this" argument in this case usually forgets the Swedish law aspect. For example , I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect). And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing? So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy Not to mention that the whole "This is to bring him to the US" thing ignores that: - extradition from the UK to the US requires going through UK courts -Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? The whole Swedish side of the story is bizarre but any argument about US influence in the prosecution seems to not make any sense except if to commit character attacks. Because it made US extradition harder, not easier
  • cia_stooge 11y ago
    > "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? Yes. Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
    • rmc 11y ago
      Because the UK stands up to the USA all the time?
      • tunap 11y ago
        Ecuador, si. UK, not so much.
      • phaus 11y ago
        An embassy is usually considered sovereign territory. In other words, the Equadorian embassy is geographically located in the UK, but it isn't a part of the UK.
        • martinflack 11y ago
          I am not a lawyer, but I find this little area of law interesting so I looked it up. Here's what I found... That statement is commonly believed, but it's sort of functionality true, not literally true. Embassies are still part of the host country, but generally (a) police/military of the host country cannot enter without permission of the Ambassador and (b) most employees who came from the mission country hold a diplomatic passport or have (some) diplomatic immunity by treaty, making them immune to prosecution, and (c) some laws of the host country apply to the embassy employees or operate on the embassy functions, but this would be moreso about procedure and secrecy than mundane daily life laws. There may be exceptions to the above in treaties. In the UK there are exceptions to getting permission to entering an embassy (legal exceptions -- obviously the political fallout would be up for debate). If two people making a visa application got into a fight in line, resulting in major injury, the Ambassador would probably just call the local police and have them dealt with locally, because the host country's laws still apply. However if one of the guards shot a local troublemaker who appeared to be a security threat, the Ambassador might simply do nothing, resulting in the guard not being able to be arrested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity US Marine Security Guards carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#Responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#Responsi...
          • phaus 11y ago
            So, is this incorrect or am I just misunderstanding it? I intended my original statement in the context of functional truth, because the ownership of the actual landmass doesn't seem to matter when we are discussing a legal/political issue. "While diplomatic spaces remain the territory of the host state, an embassy or consulate represents a sovereign state. International rules do not allow representatives of the host country to enter an embassy without permission --even to put out a fire -- and designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents." http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/pl... Edit: I think it should have been pretty obvious that I wasn't claiming that it actually is one of the United States, only that it represents a sovereign state.
  • vacri 11y ago
    > Extradition from the UK to the US through Sweden requires goig through Swedish AND UK courts. Its strictly harder Once he's in Sweden, how does a UK court have any jurisdiction? Anyway, the UK already wants to arrest him and hand him over to Sweden, given that they've been staking out the embassy for several years now. Imagine if the London police had've spent all those staff-hours chasing domestic rapists. I reckon they would have nabbed at least one that they wouldn't have otherwise, which would bring them up to the same level of arrestees detained as all this effort spent on one guy (who hasn't even been found guilty in any court yet). The idea that "they wouldn't do it; it's all too politically hard" discounts all the resources they've already spent because of politics.
    • ascorbic 11y ago
      > Once he's in Sweden, how does a UK court have any jurisdiction? It's in the extradition treaties. If the person has already been extradited from another country, that country also needs to give permission for any onward extradition.
      • alextgordon 11y ago
        But do they need permission from the courts, or from the home secretary? Theresa May will do whatever the US tells her to, it's not like Assange is the cause célèbre that McKinnon was.
        • Tomte 11y ago
          That doesn't matter, that's the point. Having the Swedish government and Theresa May assent to an extradition can never be easier than having only the Swedish government assenting to it. Even if she really did "whatever the US tells her to" Assange wouldn't lose the smallest thing.
          • makomk 11y ago
            Except that Assange was/is in the UK, so the UK courts and Theresa May would both have to agree to extradite him to the US - which is quite likely harder than getting the Swedish government and Theresa May assent to an extradition.
  • ryanlol 11y ago
    Perhaps UK previously unofficially declined to extradite Assange? >So I don't remember the Swedish law stuff too sell either but there were legal barriers to questioning in the embassy This is absolutely not true and the Swedish supreme court called the prosecutor out for their bullshit.
  • agd 11y ago
    > I think here the questioning was more of a "placing under arrest" (there was something about how the questioning is mandatory before officially declaring someone a suspect). The point is that after questioning, they have to make a decision whether to charge him. Either way, this would have moved the case forward. >And the questioning needed to happen in Sweden for some constitutional thing? Not true. As shown by the fact that they a) question other suspects abroad and b) have now agreed to have him questioned in the embassy after all.
  • vidarh 11y ago
    > "But they'll kidnap him or something": is Sweden easier to be kidnapped him from? It's not that many years ago that Swedish police cooperated in illegally black-bagging two asylum seekers and illegally handed them over to the CIA who shipped them off to Egypt - the regime they'd fleed - where they were promptly tortured by Mubaraks secret police. If Swedish police was willing to effectively kidnap political asylum seekers and hand them off to a foreign government, in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, and not punish anyone for it, why should Assange trust them? We know that CIA rendition flights continued for years after the above became publicly known and the Swedish government promised rendition flights would end. We know this because of Wikileaks documents. So why should Assange trust the Swedish and US governments not to conspire? Whether or not there actually is some conspiracy (I don't believe there is), Assange has plenty of reasons to be paranoid about it.
    • rmc 11y ago
      Wait till you hear what the UK does to terrorists. The current legal justification for Guantanomo Bay style torture is based of a case that the UK won.
      • gadders 11y ago
        Got a citation/link?
        • ryanlol 11y ago
          Probably referring to the British torture of dissidents in Northern Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_techniques
          • gadders 11y ago
            Thanks for that. Although the links says it was found to not be torture.
        • tedks 11y ago
• wbhart 11y ago
  I suspect this is what will come out in the decision tomorrow. It's not about whether Assange is using asylum to dodge being questioned after the case was reopened after political interference (as has been claimed), but whether the countries involved were doing what is required to bring the matter to a legal conclusion or whether they are using the stalemate to effectively keep Assange where he is because it suits political interests. Moreover, they will have looked into whether his human rights have been violated. I suspect that they will have formally found that Assange's right to enjoy asylum, which was granted by Ecuador, has been violated and whether appropriate accommodations have been made to ensure that Assange's medical and other human rights have been violated. The UK has consistently said they would arrest Assange even if he came out of the embassy for medical reasons, effectively denying him the right to asylum in the event of a medical emergency. I can't see how the UN could set any other precedent here. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the Swedish case, the UK and Sweden have allegedly conspired to violate Assange's rights and there appears to be ample reason to suspect that based on leaked documentation to date.
• rmc 11y ago
  You gotta wonder why he'd flee from Sweden (not a NATO member) to the UK (NATO co-founder). If I was afraid of the US grabbing me, I wouldn't go to the UK.
  • peteretep 11y ago
    I think if I wanted to throw myself to the mercy of the court, I'd probably choose a British one.
  • Tepix 11y ago
    He didn't flee. In fact, before he left Sweden he askes the authorities if they had any objections of him leaving. They did not.
    • rmc 11y ago
      So why go to the UK at all in the first place?
      • fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        The weather? The beer? Work? No reason in particular?