4 ms·

Exactly! It is up to the court system to decide what to do about a particular case. Any promise from a government official will be a lie.

by fpoling 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago
They can circumvent it pretty easily by not saying "We will not extradite Edward Snowden" but simply doing by making a very clear statement of two facts: i) "We do not extradite anyone who would risk a death penalty" and ii) "We believe it is clear that Edward Snowden would risk a death penalty in the US". Having said those two things (which they can), they have implied the what he wants to know, without breaking any laws.
- vintermann 11y ago
  It's also a myth that Sweden can't do the same for Assange (although one defended by certain lawyers for political reasons). The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Politicians like to pretend their hands are tied because they would like to blame the bureaucracy for unpopular decisions, but they have full freedom to interpret their own bilateral treaty obligations. If the Norwegian government says he's a political refugee, he is as far as Norwegian law is concerned.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    > The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Not sure what you are implying by that. An extradition is tried in a court (if the person to be extradited does not want to be extradited). The supreme court tries the extradition against the legislation and then hands it to the government for decision [1]. I think you may be thinking about this passage from[1]: "Anser Högsta domstolen att det finns hinder mot utlämning, får regeringen inte bifalla framställningen. Regeringen kan dock neka utlämning även om Högsta domstolen inte har motsatt sig en utlämning; i lagen anges nämligen att en person under vissa förutsättningar "må" utlämnas - inte "ska" utlämnas." It says that if the courts find that extradition is NOT legal, then the government may not extradite, but if the court recommends the extradition (i.e. find it legal) then the government can still deny it. So while it is true that the govrenment CAN in any situation reject any extradition - it is out of the question for a government to forego the court process. This would be known as "Ministerstyre" (an action by a member of a government or a cabinet, which is to be interpreted - or can be interpreted - as dictating, or interfering with, the daily workings of a government agency, court of law or similar.). One can call that "bureaucracy" but the fact remains - the swedish government would just not do that. [1] http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedepartementet/internationellt-rattsligt-samarbete/utlamning-for-brott/ http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedeparteme...
    - vintermann 11y ago
      If the government can see beforehand that they would not agree to extradition, I think it's just a waste of money to ask the courts whether it would be legal. There's nothing legally stopping the Swedish government, at best notions of procedural propriety that are not binding. Truth is even so, ministries meddle with the departments - or are accused of it, with varying degrees of reasonableness - all the time. When the case against Assange was revived (the first prosecutor dismissed it in unusually clear terms), that was as I see it far more pernicious meddling than pre-rejecting extradition of a political refugee would be.

Exactly! It is up to the court system to decide what to do about a particular case. Any promise from a government official will be a lie.

by fpoling 11y ago

Exactly! It is up to the court system to decide what to do about a particular case. Any promise from a government official will be a lie.

alkonaut 11y ago

They can circumvent it pretty easily by not saying "We will not extradite Edward Snowden" but simply doing by making a very clear statement of two facts: i) "We do not extradite anyone who would risk a death penalty" and ii) "We believe it is clear that Edward Snowden would risk a death penalty in the US". Having said those two things (which they can), they have implied the what he wants to know, without breaking any laws.

vintermann 11y ago
It's also a myth that Sweden can't do the same for Assange (although one defended by certain lawyers for political reasons). The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Politicians like to pretend their hands are tied because they would like to blame the bureaucracy for unpopular decisions, but they have full freedom to interpret their own bilateral treaty obligations. If the Norwegian government says he's a political refugee, he is as far as Norwegian law is concerned.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Not sure what you are implying by that. An extradition is tried in a court (if the person to be extradited does not want to be extradited). The supreme court tries the extradition against the legislation and then hands it to the government for decision [1]. I think you may be thinking about this passage from[1]: "Anser Högsta domstolen att det finns hinder mot utlämning, får regeringen inte bifalla framställningen. Regeringen kan dock neka utlämning även om Högsta domstolen inte har motsatt sig en utlämning; i lagen anges nämligen att en person under vissa förutsättningar "må" utlämnas - inte "ska" utlämnas." It says that if the courts find that extradition is NOT legal, then the government may not extradite, but if the court recommends the extradition (i.e. find it legal) then the government can still deny it. So while it is true that the govrenment CAN in any situation reject any extradition - it is out of the question for a government to forego the court process. This would be known as "Ministerstyre" (an action by a member of a government or a cabinet, which is to be interpreted - or can be interpreted - as dictating, or interfering with, the daily workings of a government agency, court of law or similar.). One can call that "bureaucracy" but the fact remains - the swedish government would just not do that. [1] http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedepartementet/internationellt-rattsligt-samarbete/utlamning-for-brott/ http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedeparteme...
  - vintermann 11y ago
    If the government can see beforehand that they would not agree to extradition, I think it's just a waste of money to ask the courts whether it would be legal. There's nothing legally stopping the Swedish government, at best notions of procedural propriety that are not binding. Truth is even so, ministries meddle with the departments - or are accused of it, with varying degrees of reasonableness - all the time. When the case against Assange was revived (the first prosecutor dismissed it in unusually clear terms), that was as I see it far more pernicious meddling than pre-rejecting extradition of a political refugee would be.