6 ms·

He went ever further than that. He proposed to go to Sweden if he could be provided with a document promising he would not get deported to US. It was refused.

• foldr 10y ago
  It's an absurd request. No country could issue such a document. For one thing, it would establish a precedent that the government could arbitrarily decide to overall any future decisions of the judiciary. For another, it would probably violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    He has in fact more protections against extradition in Sweden than he does in the UK, both because the UK has a friendlier bilateral extradition agreement with the US and because the ECHR would require the consent of both the UK and Sweden at this point for him to be extradited.
    • hbosch 10y ago
      Doesn't being in the Ecuadorean embassy mean he is technically/politically residing in Ecuador? Or is that an oversimplification when it comes to how embassies work?
      • Tomte 10y ago
        Yes, that's an urban legend.
        • Symbiote 10y ago
          An embassy is outside the jurisdiction of the host country, but is subject to the jurisdiction of the guest country. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomati...
          • Tomte 10y ago
            But it is not part of the guest country. So Assange is still residing in England, not in Ecuador.
            • monocasa 10y ago
              But still outside the UK judicial process.
              • tptacek 10y ago
                That doesn't really mean anything. If Assange was arrested in the embassy, or, like, by a helicopter when he's out on the balcony, he would very much end up subject to the UK judicial process. The thing protecting Assange right now isn't the judicial process, but rather the inviolability of embassies. The UK police are adhering to the norm that they can't enter the embassy without permission. That norm is routinely violated in other places, but I think everyone involved is comfortable with Assange's self-inflicted house arrest.
                • monocasa 10y ago
                  Right, outside of the UK judicial process.
                • Symbiote 10y ago
                  Assange cannot be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy without the permission of the Ecuadorian ambassador. The British police can't enter the embassy without permission. The balcony makes no difference. > That norm is routinely violated in other places No, it isn't. That would severely damage relationships between the two countries. It's more than a "norm", it's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back millennia.
                  • tptacek 10y ago
                    It's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back 55 years, and if you'd like to put money on my inability to cite you an example of a country not respecting the inviolability of a diplomatic mission on their own soil, I invite you to name a number. At any rate: we agree: it's the Vienna Accords that keep the UK from simply lassoing Assange and hauling him out of the building. It has nothing to do with whether he's on Ecuadorian soil (he is not).
        • FireBeyond 10y ago
          Similar to "diplomatic immunity". It's not like Lethal Weapon where you can openly deal drugs and assassinate people and upon your imminent arrest, waive your diplomatic credentials and walk off. Whilst subject to use and abuse, most countries have agreements that while certain officials may not be prosecuted (oftentimes, this is only "for offenses related to their official capacity") in the guest country, that they will be, in their home state. Even general principles around arrest or detainment have "reasonable constraints" for self-defense, public safety or for the prevention of a serious criminal act/felony.
      • tptacek 10y ago
        It's an oversimplification. The embassy is not Ecuadorian soil. But the embassy itself is inviolable, and while that privilege is not absolute (it has been routinely broken by countries around the world), violating it is a big deal, which is why the UK hasn't simply hauled Assange out. But no, Ecuador does not have a vote in whether Assange can be extradited. The UK and Sweden do because they are both parties to a treaty that says they do.
    • monocasa 10y ago
      Except the fact that Sweden in the past has subverted their judicial process to hand non Swedish citizens over to the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
      • tptacek 10y ago
        Oh. He must be much safer in the UK, the most unhinged Five Eyes collaborator.
        • jacquesm 10y ago
          Why do you believe the UK is the most unhinged?
        • monocasa 10y ago
          Well, while he's technically in the UK, he's not subject to the UK's judicial process. And I can't ind any examples of extrajudicial extraordinary rendition originating in the UK, unlike Sweden.
      • foldr 10y ago
        They've done the same thing in the UK, but Assange was there for a while and it never happened.
        • monocasa 10y ago
          I can't actually find any examples of extrajudicial extraordinary rendition originating from the UK. The best I can find is that some of the CIA flights refueled in a UK territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#United...
  • EdHominem 10y ago
    That's well within the range of what a leader can do. Presidential pardon overrides the courts for one specific issue. And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws.
    • foldr 10y ago
      It's not possible within the limits of the Swedish constitution, as has been endlessly explained by now. Presidential pardons are irrelevant as Sweden is not the USA, but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. >And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws. Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority to override the courts and declare that someone isn't guilty of a crime in the absence of any proper legal process?
      • piaste 10y ago
        > but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. Well, in Assange's case, those would be past offences for which they may or may not be convicted. And I think that would be the same situation as Nixon when Ford pardoned him - he'd already done the deed, but hadn't been convicted yet. edit: Though, since we're speculating already - does it even make sense for an American president to pardon an Australian citizen?
        • foldr 10y ago
          Ok, you are correct that the US President can in fact pardon people preemptively (though it is very rare). But no such power is available to anyone within the Swedish government or judiciary, so far as I am aware, and to pardon Assange preemptively would in any case violate Sweden's treaty obligations.
      • EdHominem 10y ago
        No, as has been explained before, that's just apologist rhetoric. Yes, their government is different than the USA but it's ridiculous to think that the leader of a free country couldn't figure out a way to make it work. They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely. Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts. > Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority Nobody cares. That question is the sole point of blame-diffusion systems. All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability. Bush didn't have the authority to do much of what he did, but he had the ability and by the time we could point out the difference it was a done deal and now he's not prosecuted so I guess he did have the authority... The rules work differently at that level. But, even if they didn't, better the leader of a country sits in a country-club prison for doing the right thing than yet another innocent is illegally kidnapped and tortured.