4 ms·

The UK is “perfectly fine doing the USA’s bidding” because the UK follows the rule of law. First assange will be tried and if necessary serve any sentence for g

The UK is “perfectly fine doing the USA’s bidding” because the UK follows the rule of law. First assange will be tried and if necessary serve any sentence for going on the lam in the UK. Only after that would he be extradited to the US, a process that requires judicial review where Assange will have plenty of opportunity to argue that it shouldn’t go ahead. I’m glad the UK follows legal procedure instead of subverting the process because of political opinions or anti-americanism.

lucb1e 7y ago
His trial in the UK is indeed just about 'going on the lam' (ddg tells me that means fleeing), I expect that won't result in a large punishment. But I think most people would agree that USA's laws and practices with whistleblowers are unjust. The news reports I read said that the MEP (or was it MET? Some UK police force) got a heads up from Ecuador and arrested him on behalf of the USA rather than his crime of fleeing in the UK. Generally, sure, the USA is a democratic country and the UK has an extradition treaty. It is in most cases fine to honor the treaty and hand a person over when it is plausible that they committed a crime there. In Assange's case, I think we feel very differently from how the USA government feels about his actions, and we would dole out a very different punishment (if any).
- JetSetWilly 7y ago
  If US laws regarding whistleblowers are indeed unjust, he will have opportunity to argue that in the UK during judicial review. The UK refuses plenty of US extradition requests - far more than the US rate of refusal for UK extradition requests in fact. The UK will not extradite him if he doesn’t get a free trial and the US is perfectly capable of providing one. He will then have plenty of opportunity to argue before a jury why he should not be convicted. The notion that he is somehow above legal process and a strongman politician should step in to stop him facing due process is ludicrous, as well as the stupid idea that the UK is some sort of lapdog for daring to dispassionately follow legal procedure regardless of the celebrity of the accused. The fact that he is facing normal legal process where he wouldn’t in many countries where the legal system is politicised is a feather in the cap of the UK.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    That does sound reasonable. I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so. From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
    - foldr 7y ago
      > it does come before court Yes, it comes before a court. >people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe? Correct.
fpierfed 7y ago
Sure: nice in theory. What about Pinochet’s arrest and non extradition to Spain in 1998 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Aug...) then?
- JetSetWilly 7y ago
  What about it? “The UK government did something wrong in 1998 so it should do a similar wrong thing now” is not a good argument.

lucb1e 7y ago

His trial in the UK is indeed just about 'going on the lam' (ddg tells me that means fleeing), I expect that won't result in a large punishment. But I think most people would agree that USA's laws and practices with whistleblowers are unjust. The news reports I read said that the MEP (or was it MET? Some UK police force) got a heads up from Ecuador and arrested him on behalf of the USA rather than his crime of fleeing in the UK. Generally, sure, the USA is a democratic country and the UK has an extradition treaty. It is in most cases fine to honor the treaty and hand a person over when it is plausible that they committed a crime there. In Assange's case, I think we feel very differently from how the USA government feels about his actions, and we would dole out a very different punishment (if any).

JetSetWilly 7y ago
If US laws regarding whistleblowers are indeed unjust, he will have opportunity to argue that in the UK during judicial review. The UK refuses plenty of US extradition requests - far more than the US rate of refusal for UK extradition requests in fact. The UK will not extradite him if he doesn’t get a free trial and the US is perfectly capable of providing one. He will then have plenty of opportunity to argue before a jury why he should not be convicted. The notion that he is somehow above legal process and a strongman politician should step in to stop him facing due process is ludicrous, as well as the stupid idea that the UK is some sort of lapdog for daring to dispassionately follow legal procedure regardless of the celebrity of the accused. The fact that he is facing normal legal process where he wouldn’t in many countries where the legal system is politicised is a feather in the cap of the UK.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  That does sound reasonable. I am not very familiar with extradition-related laws. Reading the Wikipedia article about extradition, it does not mention judicial reviews (I'm not sure what those are), and while it briefly discusses the considerations involved in whether to allow extradition, it does not mention that it comes before any sort of court for review or so. From my perspective, it's mainly a political question (by politicians, or perhaps (I don't know) government organisations that are not independent courts, e.g. similar to the rubber stamping secret courts in the USA for national security letters) and not so much a "does the pursued trial even make sense in our eyes" kind of question weighed by an impartial judge, but from your comment, I understand that this is actually the case and it does come before court and people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe?
  - foldr 7y ago
    > it does come before court Yes, it comes before a court. >people have a reasonable chance of not being extradited if they did something that we find acceptable in Europe? Correct.

fpierfed 7y ago

Sure: nice in theory. What about Pinochet’s arrest and non extradition to Spain in 1998 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Aug...) then?

JetSetWilly 7y ago
What about it? “The UK government did something wrong in 1998 so it should do a similar wrong thing now” is not a good argument.