7 ms·

David Allen Green‏, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's cons

by r721 9y ago

David Allen Green‏, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/865505649806856192 https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...

vidarh 9y ago
That assessment, though, is based on an assumption that Swedish authorities would have complied with Swedish law. Part of Assanges fear of going to Sweden, whether justified or not, is presumably that Sweden had a history of letting Swedish police get away with blatantly violating Swedish law in support of US rendition. One could argue that this risk is not real in his case, but that is/was not relevant to whether or not it affected Assange's concern about which country seemed safer. Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions. In any case, UK courts have a history of taking extradition hearings very seriously, and there are ample opportunities to appeal both to UK courts, the ECHR, and (for the time being) to the ECJ, so it'd by no means be easy to get him from the UK direct.
- matt4077 9y ago
  It doesn't have to be "the prosecutor's ambition"–it's just an unwillingness to let someone skip a trial just by fleeing, and the precedent it would set.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    That does not explain the highly unusual step of overruling another prosecutors decision that there was no case to answer, the illegal release of information to the press, nor the insistence not to interview him in the UK - something she kept up for four years before finally accepting that there is no legal basis preventing her from doing so (one of the excuses used), and finally interviewing him last year.
- notahacker 9y ago
  If Assange truly feared the police blatantly violating Swedish law in support of rendition, then it would seem strange for him to base himself in Sweden, remain in the country whilst being well aware of the investigation under way against him and leave only on the day they notified him they'd received legal authorisation to detain him. And then repeat the whole thing in the UK...
  - PJDK 9y ago
    And not to mention that fear when arguing against his extradition in a UK court.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    They had closed the case, and notified him of that. Then a new prosecutor reopens the case and goes after him. The point is that Sweden might very well have seemed perfectly safe despite those past actions until a prosecutor took those steps which still seems exceedingly odd. To have one prosecutor say there was no case to answer, only to have another prosecutor specifically go after the case and reopen it, is uncommon to say the least.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      (i)The case was very publicly reopened the week after it had been announced it was being dropped. I mean, it's not like headlines like this would have escaped Assange's notice http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investig... Assange spent 26 more days in the country and then flew out hours after his arrest warrant was signed. (ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor following an appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer and an interview with the accused. Especially when it's a one-party's word against another's case and the accusing party had initially seemed reluctant to pursue a prosecution.
      - draugadrotten 9y ago
        > ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor The prosecutor who dismissed the case was senior, and not junior in any sense of the word, rank or age. You say it's not unusual (in Sweden). I've never seen a single example of another rape case which was dismissed and reopened in this manner. Can you give a few examples of other re-opened Swedish rape cases, seeing that it's "not unusual" from your point of view.
- kristianc 9y ago
  > Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions. The law is the law, and Assange stood accused of a serious crime in Sweden. The idea that Sweden would simply forget about it because Assange had holed himself up in an embassy for five years seems misplaced.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    With the "unusual persistence" I was not referring to keeping the case open, but with e.g. continuing to refuse not to interview him for four years for no good reason, while giving reasons that she eventually proved were false by finally agreeing to do it anyway.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. The law is a perfectly "good reason" for authorities to act the way they did. It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        > You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. Can you clarify this? I'm honestly confused - the topic seems to be the refusal and then acceptance of an in-embassy interview. I could understand if the refusal was a procedural issue, but in that case why was it eventually accepted?
        k1m 9y ago
        Exactly. Sweden was clearly trying to say the in-embassy interview was out of the question, against Swedish law. Then completely backtracked and went ahead with it anyway. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps the UN ruling against Sweden was the what pushed them to do it.
- rmc 9y ago
  Whereas the UK has a history of colluding with terrorists to murder politically annoying human rights lawyers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane ) and oppressing an ethnic minority (the whole of The Troubles in Nothern Ireland). There's a reason "People in NI should have direct access to the ECHR" (as opposed to going through UK courts) was a part of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement when brought peace to NI. UK is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    I did not imply anywhere that the UK is a bastion of freedom and liberty. For starters I don't personally consider the UK a democracy at all because of the electoral system, and I do agree with you there were certainly plenty of abuses related to Northern Ireland. But the question here is where Assange would have reason to feel safer in the UK than in Sweden, and just like many other places through history, a place can both be incredibly safe for one group of people and unsafe for other groups of people at the same time.
cmdkeen 9y ago
Other legal commentators in the thread pointing out that he is still wanted for "failing to surrender" to his bail which can face up to 12 months in prison. This is what the arrest warrant will be for, not some secret US extradition request. Prosecution guidance on the offence: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a32 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a32
- toyg 9y ago
  But now the UK government can surrender that right to prosecute him if they want to. The political responsibility is pretty clear at this point.
  - cmdkeen 9y ago
    Why? He had the opportunity to appeal all the way to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that the extradition request was valid. Those who pledged surety over his bail were ordered to pay £93,500 back in 2012. This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law. There is a serious point as well that bail needs to be enforced otherwise its effectiveness is reduced, which in turn makes it easier for the arguments limiting the right to bail to be made. Assange has made it more likely that future defendants will be denied bail.
    - toyg 9y ago
      > This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law. But it is about politics. No other bail-skipper in recent memory was ever granted the attention and resources that the UK police granted to the Assange case. It's also pretty clear by now that the Swedish charges were overblown, with very strong suggestions that it was done for political reasons. Hiding behind procedures will not change that. A "strong and stable" government, relishing its independence from foreign states, would drop this in a second and reconsider its procedures for future cases, so that other countries cannot abuse UK law to enforce bogus prosecutions. In the context of Brexit and the noise about "security cooperation", this would also be a strong message.
forvelin 9y ago
Also he is still not free, UK made it clear that they would arrest him in first opportunity. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-britain-idUSKCN18F0XM?il=0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-bri...
- jmkni 9y ago
  Because he skipped bail, which is against the law. They would arrest anybody who did the same thing.
  - Trill-I-Am 9y ago
    Do you think they spend as much money on less politically noteworthy bail skippers?
    - jmkni 9y ago
      Less politically noteworthy bail skippers generally wouldn't have the connections/money to avoid bail by hiding in an embassy for years, but I would say yes.
    - whyenot 9y ago
      On a bail skipper "hiding" in plain sight in the middle of London? Absolutely. Why is how much money "they" spend even relevant? He skipped bail. He should be arrested and face the consequences just like anyone else in the same situation.
harry8 9y ago
It's always a good thing to bring cases like this into some kind of context to see the extent to which it's the rule of law or something else. Julian Assange may be a rapist but a prosecutor thought there wasn't enough to even say maybe don't leave the country. Roman Polanski may not be a child rapist but I'm not even sure he arguing that. [1] How would you characterise the difference in the treatment of these gentlemen and I use the word gentlemen quite wrongly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski
- samastur 9y ago
  Personally I find it appalling how freely Polanski moves around (for what is worth I like many of his films).
k1m 9y ago
It's worth noting that David Allen Green is not a neutral commentator here. He was very clearly against Assange early on. See this piece where Glenn Greenwald debunks some of his falsehoods. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-st...
mediaserf 9y ago
Why is Ecuador's consent not required if he is inside their embassy?
- Ntrails 9y ago
  It is, obviously, it's just assumed that he'd rather like to leave at some point..

by r721 9y ago

vidarh 9y ago

That assessment, though, is based on an assumption that Swedish authorities would have complied with Swedish law. Part of Assanges fear of going to Sweden, whether justified or not, is presumably that Sweden had a history of letting Swedish police get away with blatantly violating Swedish law in support of US rendition. One could argue that this risk is not real in his case, but that is/was not relevant to whether or not it affected Assange's concern about which country seemed safer. Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions. In any case, UK courts have a history of taking extradition hearings very seriously, and there are ample opportunities to appeal both to UK courts, the ECHR, and (for the time being) to the ECJ, so it'd by no means be easy to get him from the UK direct.

matt4077 9y ago
It doesn't have to be "the prosecutor's ambition"–it's just an unwillingness to let someone skip a trial just by fleeing, and the precedent it would set.
- vidarh 9y ago
  That does not explain the highly unusual step of overruling another prosecutors decision that there was no case to answer, the illegal release of information to the press, nor the insistence not to interview him in the UK - something she kept up for four years before finally accepting that there is no legal basis preventing her from doing so (one of the excuses used), and finally interviewing him last year.
notahacker 9y ago
If Assange truly feared the police blatantly violating Swedish law in support of rendition, then it would seem strange for him to base himself in Sweden, remain in the country whilst being well aware of the investigation under way against him and leave only on the day they notified him they'd received legal authorisation to detain him. And then repeat the whole thing in the UK...
- PJDK 9y ago
  And not to mention that fear when arguing against his extradition in a UK court.
- vidarh 9y ago
  They had closed the case, and notified him of that. Then a new prosecutor reopens the case and goes after him. The point is that Sweden might very well have seemed perfectly safe despite those past actions until a prosecutor took those steps which still seems exceedingly odd. To have one prosecutor say there was no case to answer, only to have another prosecutor specifically go after the case and reopen it, is uncommon to say the least.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    (i)The case was very publicly reopened the week after it had been announced it was being dropped. I mean, it's not like headlines like this would have escaped Assange's notice http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investig... Assange spent 26 more days in the country and then flew out hours after his arrest warrant was signed. (ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor following an appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer and an interview with the accused. Especially when it's a one-party's word against another's case and the accusing party had initially seemed reluctant to pursue a prosecution.
    - draugadrotten 9y ago
      > ii) there's nothing particularly unusual about a more senior prosecutor overriding an earlier decision of a more junior prosecutor The prosecutor who dismissed the case was senior, and not junior in any sense of the word, rank or age. You say it's not unusual (in Sweden). I've never seen a single example of another rape case which was dismissed and reopened in this manner. Can you give a few examples of other re-opened Swedish rape cases, seeing that it's "not unusual" from your point of view.
kristianc 9y ago
> Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions. The law is the law, and Assange stood accused of a serious crime in Sweden. The idea that Sweden would simply forget about it because Assange had holed himself up in an embassy for five years seems misplaced.
- vidarh 9y ago
  With the "unusual persistence" I was not referring to keeping the case open, but with e.g. continuing to refuse not to interview him for four years for no good reason, while giving reasons that she eventually proved were false by finally agreeing to do it anyway.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. The law is a perfectly "good reason" for authorities to act the way they did. It is a rather common meme to accuse Swedes of not conforming to concepts of British/U.S. law (common law system) when Swedish has another system, not any worse but somewhat different in the usage of terms like "charge".
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      > You ignore the procedural limitations imposed by Swedish law. Can you clarify this? I'm honestly confused - the topic seems to be the refusal and then acceptance of an in-embassy interview. I could understand if the refusal was a procedural issue, but in that case why was it eventually accepted?
      - k1m 9y ago
        Exactly. Sweden was clearly trying to say the in-embassy interview was out of the question, against Swedish law. Then completely backtracked and went ahead with it anyway. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Perhaps the UN ruling against Sweden was the what pushed them to do it.
rmc 9y ago
Whereas the UK has a history of colluding with terrorists to murder politically annoying human rights lawyers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane ) and oppressing an ethnic minority (the whole of The Troubles in Nothern Ireland). There's a reason "People in NI should have direct access to the ECHR" (as opposed to going through UK courts) was a part of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement when brought peace to NI. UK is hardly a bastion of freedom and liberty.
- vidarh 9y ago
  I did not imply anywhere that the UK is a bastion of freedom and liberty. For starters I don't personally consider the UK a democracy at all because of the electoral system, and I do agree with you there were certainly plenty of abuses related to Northern Ireland. But the question here is where Assange would have reason to feel safer in the UK than in Sweden, and just like many other places through history, a place can both be incredibly safe for one group of people and unsafe for other groups of people at the same time.

cmdkeen 9y ago

Other legal commentators in the thread pointing out that he is still wanted for "failing to surrender" to his bail which can face up to 12 months in prison. This is what the arrest warrant will be for, not some secret US extradition request. Prosecution guidance on the offence: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a32 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a32

toyg 9y ago
But now the UK government can surrender that right to prosecute him if they want to. The political responsibility is pretty clear at this point.
- cmdkeen 9y ago
  Why? He had the opportunity to appeal all the way to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that the extradition request was valid. Those who pledged surety over his bail were ordered to pay £93,500 back in 2012. This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law. There is a serious point as well that bail needs to be enforced otherwise its effectiveness is reduced, which in turn makes it easier for the arguments limiting the right to bail to be made. Assange has made it more likely that future defendants will be denied bail.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > This absolutely should not be about politics but about the rule of law. But it is about politics. No other bail-skipper in recent memory was ever granted the attention and resources that the UK police granted to the Assange case. It's also pretty clear by now that the Swedish charges were overblown, with very strong suggestions that it was done for political reasons. Hiding behind procedures will not change that. A "strong and stable" government, relishing its independence from foreign states, would drop this in a second and reconsider its procedures for future cases, so that other countries cannot abuse UK law to enforce bogus prosecutions. In the context of Brexit and the noise about "security cooperation", this would also be a strong message.

forvelin 9y ago

Also he is still not free, UK made it clear that they would arrest him in first opportunity. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-britain-idUSKCN18F0XM?il=0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-bri...

jmkni 9y ago
Because he skipped bail, which is against the law. They would arrest anybody who did the same thing.
- Trill-I-Am 9y ago
  Do you think they spend as much money on less politically noteworthy bail skippers?
  - jmkni 9y ago
    Less politically noteworthy bail skippers generally wouldn't have the connections/money to avoid bail by hiding in an embassy for years, but I would say yes.
  - whyenot 9y ago
    On a bail skipper "hiding" in plain sight in the middle of London? Absolutely. Why is how much money "they" spend even relevant? He skipped bail. He should be arrested and face the consequences just like anyone else in the same situation.

harry8 9y ago

It's always a good thing to bring cases like this into some kind of context to see the extent to which it's the rule of law or something else. Julian Assange may be a rapist but a prosecutor thought there wasn't enough to even say maybe don't leave the country. Roman Polanski may not be a child rapist but I'm not even sure he arguing that. [1] How would you characterise the difference in the treatment of these gentlemen and I use the word gentlemen quite wrongly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

samastur 9y ago
Personally I find it appalling how freely Polanski moves around (for what is worth I like many of his films).

k1m 9y ago

It's worth noting that David Allen Green is not a neutral commentator here. He was very clearly against Assange early on. See this piece where Glenn Greenwald debunks some of his falsehoods. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-st...

mediaserf 9y ago

Why is Ecuador's consent not required if he is inside their embassy?

Ntrails 9y ago
It is, obviously, it's just assumed that he'd rather like to leave at some point..