5 ms·

America could have just as easily extradited him from the UK as from Sweden.

by isostatic 8y ago

garmaine 8y ago
He wasn't in the UK.
- raaxe 8y ago
  He is now.
- foldr 8y ago
  Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth. Assange was in the UK when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. However, the UK authorities could not have removed him from the embassy without violating the Vienna Convention.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Semantics. The host country is prevented from entering, searching, seizing people or persons, or otherwise enforcing its laws in any way. The soil is technically still British, but so long as he had Ecuador's cooperation, he was entirely outside the reach of UK law. So by the dictionary definition of sovereignty -- "supreme power or authority" the sovereign inside the walls of the embassy is Ecuador, not the UK, since the UK has no de facto authority there. But by the definition of "sovereignty" applied to issues of land ownership, the interior space of the building is technically still British and would revert back to enforceable UK legal jurisdiction when the mission is over. So really you could argue it either way.
    - foldr 8y ago
      No, the UK is sovereign inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The authorities are prevented from entering by international treaties that they've signed. If international treaty obligations block sovereignty, then the UK isn't sovereign within the UK either (!), since there are certainly international treaties signed by the UK which prevent the UK authorities doing certain things within the UK. For example, the UK authorities cannot usually arrest diplomats, regardless of whether or not the diplomat is in an embassy.
      - hopler 8y ago
        Sovereignty isn't binary, and states and laws are one of many social constructs. Discussing the complexities is interesting. Purely semantic arguments is not.
        foldr 8y ago
        I was responding to OP's claim that Assange was not "in the UK" when he was in the embassy. That's false on any reasonable understanding of those words. It would only be true if embassies were in fact foreign soil.
      - TelmoMenezes 8y ago
        > If international treaty obligations block sovereignty, then the UK isn't sovereign within the UK either (!) Yup. International treaties are an exchange of sovereignty for something else. The general public imagine that XIX-century-style nation states still exist, but they haven't for a long time. I suspect the USA's rhetoric of patriotism, especially post-9/11 exacerbates this view. Even the USA shares a lot of its sovereignty with external entities (gasp!). The only XIX-century-style nation state left might be North Korea, FWIW.
    - erk__ 8y ago
      Yeah it is pretty much De Jure vs. De Facto. they may have De Jure access, but De Facto they do not.
  - logifail 8y ago
    > Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth... Along with the myth of not being "in" country X when you're in airside transit on an international-international itinerary through an airport there.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Both are metaphors that hold in some cases, and break down in others.
- isostatic 8y ago
  He was before he ran to the embassy, skipping bail, on the pretext that if the UK extradited him to Sweden, Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. That's an invalid pretext.
  - rndgermandude 8y ago
    Why is that invalid?
    - OlleTO 8y ago
      He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to run away to the country which (at least at the time) has the strongest ties to the US?
      - rndgermandude 8y ago
        He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. His "pre-text" wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK. So he was fearful of Sweden, not the UK. You can say that this is stupid or even claim he cannot genuinely believe that and is therefore disingenuous, but unless a true mindreader shows up, we cannot know what he thought and feared, really.
        notahacker 8y ago
        He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
        OlleTO 8y ago
mcv 8y ago
More easily. The UK has extradited people to the US on questionable grounds before. I don't think Sweden has.
- PokemonNoGo 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... and as context, albeit very long ago, I might aswell mention the most known case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_soldiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_...
- capitol_ 8y ago
  Sweden have also done this. Sorry for the swedish link but found no better: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna
Mvandenbergh 8y ago
Indeed. More easily because the US/UK extradition agreement only requires each country's courts to apply the same tests as they use domestically to allow an arrest. In the US that test is called probable cause, in the UK it's called reasonable suspicion. (Some people at the time felt that this was not fair as the US test is arguably a tougher one but arguably that just reflects the country's domestic arrest policies being different. In any case, the UK refuses far more US extradition requests than vice versa. If you want to read 400 pages on this, the Baker Extradition review which also covers the European Arrest Warrant and the Prima Facie test is available online.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

America could have just as easily extradited him from the UK as from Sweden.

garmaine 8y ago

He wasn't in the UK.

raaxe 8y ago
He is now.
foldr 8y ago
Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth. Assange was in the UK when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. However, the UK authorities could not have removed him from the embassy without violating the Vienna Convention.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Semantics. The host country is prevented from entering, searching, seizing people or persons, or otherwise enforcing its laws in any way. The soil is technically still British, but so long as he had Ecuador's cooperation, he was entirely outside the reach of UK law. So by the dictionary definition of sovereignty -- "supreme power or authority" the sovereign inside the walls of the embassy is Ecuador, not the UK, since the UK has no de facto authority there. But by the definition of "sovereignty" applied to issues of land ownership, the interior space of the building is technically still British and would revert back to enforceable UK legal jurisdiction when the mission is over. So really you could argue it either way.
  - foldr 8y ago
    No, the UK is sovereign inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The authorities are prevented from entering by international treaties that they've signed. If international treaty obligations block sovereignty, then the UK isn't sovereign within the UK either (!), since there are certainly international treaties signed by the UK which prevent the UK authorities doing certain things within the UK. For example, the UK authorities cannot usually arrest diplomats, regardless of whether or not the diplomat is in an embassy.
    - hopler 8y ago
      Sovereignty isn't binary, and states and laws are one of many social constructs. Discussing the complexities is interesting. Purely semantic arguments is not.
      - foldr 8y ago
        I was responding to OP's claim that Assange was not "in the UK" when he was in the embassy. That's false on any reasonable understanding of those words. It would only be true if embassies were in fact foreign soil.
    - TelmoMenezes 8y ago
      > If international treaty obligations block sovereignty, then the UK isn't sovereign within the UK either (!) Yup. International treaties are an exchange of sovereignty for something else. The general public imagine that XIX-century-style nation states still exist, but they haven't for a long time. I suspect the USA's rhetoric of patriotism, especially post-9/11 exacerbates this view. Even the USA shares a lot of its sovereignty with external entities (gasp!). The only XIX-century-style nation state left might be North Korea, FWIW.
  - erk__ 8y ago
    Yeah it is pretty much De Jure vs. De Facto. they may have De Jure access, but De Facto they do not.
- logifail 8y ago
  > Extraterritoriality of embassies is a myth... Along with the myth of not being "in" country X when you're in airside transit on an international-international itinerary through an airport there.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Both are metaphors that hold in some cases, and break down in others.
isostatic 8y ago
He was before he ran to the embassy, skipping bail, on the pretext that if the UK extradited him to Sweden, Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. That's an invalid pretext.
- rndgermandude 8y ago
  Why is that invalid?
  - OlleTO 8y ago
    He was in the UK for two years after leaving Sweden before he entered the embassy. Had he really been fearful of extradition to the US, why would he choose to run away to the country which (at least at the time) has the strongest ties to the US?
    - rndgermandude 8y ago
      He did not run to the UK. The charges in Sweden had been dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. I'll give you that the UK is a bad choice to go, but at the time he was free and clear of any charges. Only after he was in the UK, Sweden reopened their investigation, and at first reported him as a "witness" they'd like to interview, and that's what they based their request for extradition on. He wasn't "accused" at the time Sweden filed. His "pre-text" wasn't that he feared the UK would extradite him to the US, but that the UK would extradite him to Sweden, which would extradite him to the UK. So he was fearful of Sweden, not the UK. You can say that this is stupid or even claim he cannot genuinely believe that and is therefore disingenuous, but unless a true mindreader shows up, we cannot know what he thought and feared, really.
      - notahacker 8y ago
        He was obviously free to leave the country, but his lawyer was advised the case had been reopened 5 days before he arrived in the UK
      - OlleTO 8y ago

mcv 8y ago

More easily. The UK has extradited people to the US on questionable grounds before. I don't think Sweden has.

PokemonNoGo 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... and as context, albeit very long ago, I might aswell mention the most known case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_soldiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_extradition_of_Baltic_...
capitol_ 8y ago
Sweden have also done this. Sorry for the swedish link but found no better: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptenavvisningarna

Mvandenbergh 8y ago

Indeed. More easily because the US/UK extradition agreement only requires each country's courts to apply the same tests as they use domestically to allow an arrest. In the US that test is called probable cause, in the UK it's called reasonable suspicion. (Some people at the time felt that this was not fair as the US test is arguably a tougher one but arguably that just reflects the country's domestic arrest policies being different. In any case, the UK refuses far more US extradition requests than vice versa. If you want to read 400 pages on this, the Baker Extradition review which also covers the European Arrest Warrant and the Prima Facie test is available online.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]