6 ms·
There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things: 1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying i
by ryanlol 11y ago
There seems to be some ridiculously large misconceptions here regarding these two things:
1. Assange is not violating any Swedish laws or policies by staying in the embassy and avoiding extradition, he has no obligation to return to Sweden and every right not to.
2. Assanges presence in Sweden is not required by Swedish policies or laws, Swedish courts already called out the prosecutor for not accepting his statements from the embassy.
The duty of the prosecutor also seems to need clarifying, some people here seem to think that the prosecutor has no obligation to agree to interview Assange in the embassy. This is absolutely not true.
Do you not think that the victims(although not entirely applicable here) are OK with the prosecutor indefinitely delaying the case until the crimes expire just because she is too arrogant to pick up the phone and ring up Assange or buy a 30 euro plane ticket to London?
Another thing worth noting is that many people seem to think UK is a particularly easy country to extradite people from, this isn't exactly true. See Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love.
Sweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA.
- rpgmaker 11y agoAlso worth noting is that Assange has said repeatedly that he would leave the embassy if he is given written assurance that he won't be extradited to the US.
- dopamean 11y agoI don't think anyone could guarantee that. What if he was extradited to Australia and then Australia gave him up?
- _delirium 11y agoIt's possible to extradite people only following an agreement about their treatment post-extradition. For example the receiving party could agree to not further extradite them. This kind of agreement happens fairly often. A common example is extraditions to the US from EU countries. Following a 1989 decision of the European Court of Human Rights [1], EU countries cannot extradite suspects to the US if they would face the death penalty in the US. Therefore in every extradition from the EU to the US involving a potentially capital crime, the US first signs a waiver agreeing not to seek the death penalty in the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soering_v_United_Kingdom
- reillyse 11y agoHowever I'm not sure an agreement is required and (I believe) agreements are usually only made concerning laws or punishments that are not applicable in the pre-extradition country. Therefore if Sweden and the USA can agree that breaching national security secrets is a crime in the USA and Sweden recognize a similar crime (which I'm sure they do), and the USA agree not to kill Assange I don't see any reason why they couldn't extradite.
- zanny 11y agoHis terms probably include that the country promises not to agree to any extraditions unless the extraditing country also agrees to the terms of not sending him to the US and not allowing further extraditions without the same promise. IE, Sweden would not give him to Australia unless Australia also agreed to not let him be extradited to the US or any country that does not promise to maintain the promise.
- gsnedders 11y agoNobody in Sweden can do this. The Swedish government constitutionally cannot do this, despite Assange's requests, given the separation between government and judiciary. The Judiciary cannot provide a guarantee because they are obliged to follow due process for each and every request for extradition they receive, and until they receive one they cannot rule on any extradition.
- Ntrails 11y agoHe is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time[1]. Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years. [1] it'd be nice if we put some political pressure on Sweden to resolve the issue remotely but that's neither here nor there.
- proactivesvcs 11y agoAnd be on the receiving end of any fees incurred as a result of their bail violation.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoNonsense. A gov't can foolishly decide to waste inordinate resources as a punitive measure.
- ryanlol 11y ago>He is, however, violating the conditions of his bail in the UK and I don't really see why we should offer any special dispensation just because he's been "hiding out" for a long time. He is violating his bail conditions in the UK but I don't see how that's relevant here. Assanges goal isn't avoiding arrest, but extradition. >Anyone violating bail should expect to spend the rest of their life under threat of arrest and not assume they can make it go away by hiding out for a few years. I'm not entirely sure about the UK system on this but in most countries crimes expire.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pvg 11y agoDamage to a forum from users running around insinuating others are 'shills' is much greater than from any supposed shills. And you keep doing it - adding links doesn't make it any less baseless or icky.
- kafkaesq 11y agoSweden has a history of just handing people over to the CIA. I wouldn't doubt this -- but if you can provide a quick recap for those not familiar with this side history, that would be most helpful.