7 ms·

What about protection from extradition to the United States for bogus charges? Whsitleblowers need protection from cooperations and nation states.

vkou 8y ago
Assange isn't accused of being a whistleblower, he's being accused of actively aiding Manning in breaking into a computer. It's the difference between a journalist interviewing a burglar, and a journalist offering to hold the prybar, while the burglar is at work. His supporters are currently going through the most amazing calisthenics to justify that behaviour.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- GordonS 8y ago
  Yes, but he did so to reveal war crimes that the US had buried - doesn't this still count as whistle-blowing?
  - scottie_m 8y ago
    He’s not being charged for what he published, he’s being charged with conspiracy to “hack” as it were. If you’re asking whether something stops being a crime because you did it for virtuous reasons, obviously the answer is no from a legal perspective.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      That is what I'm asking - Assange aside, surely this can apply to any number of whistle-blowing scenarios, and whistle-blowing laws should provide protections from law under certain circumstances? Don't the ends justify the means, especially if far greater crimes are revealed as a result?
akerro 8y ago
Only will give extra protection if US agrees to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
walterstucco 8y ago
You can ask Ecuador or Russia to help, like Assange and Snowden did. I'm sure your freedom will be top priority there
ben_w 8y ago
The trouble with trumped-up charges, is that often outsiders don’t have the capacity to determine that they’re bogus. I mean, the point of extradition is a trial, and the point of a trial is to determine guilt. Of course, as you seem to he referring to Assange, just remember the UK is (it claims) leaving the EU, and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA.
- mrec 8y ago
  > and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA Bit offtopic for this thread, but I'd call that a very peculiar read of the situation. The Withdrawal Agreement that May is pushing involves a permanent de facto customs union with the EU, ongoing regulatory alignment with the EU, and military integration with the EU. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the US.
  - ChrisSD 8y ago
    Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it's meant to be temporary until such time as a more permanent deal is agreed (although it's true it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made).
    - mrec 8y ago
      Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
      - pergadad 8y ago
        You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.
thefounder 8y ago
As far as I know if the action is not a crime in the home country there is no extradition process.
mpweiher 8y ago
Germany does not extradite its citizens to the US. It used to not extradite its citizens at all, but that was loosened so extradition to EU countries and international courts is possible. Furthermore there are limitations, I think these apply fairly generally: - the alleged crime must be a crime in both jurisdictions - no death penalty - no torture - a fair trial must be ensured - unusually harsh punishments would also be a blocker
- gsnedders 8y ago
  All but the first would be held by the ECtHR to be in violation of accused's human rights, therefore no signatory of the ECHR can extradite in any such case.
ChrisSD 8y ago
If the charges are deemed to be bogus then the extradition request won't be granted.
- rjf72 8y ago
  This is an idealistic world view. In reality many high profile cases are determined primarily by the political clout of the entities involved. When it comes to nations such as the US we are going to get what we want on issues that are deemed significant. The recent Huawei case had a particularly interesting illustration of this. Under US instruction Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the founder of Huawei and a high ranking executive of the company herself. Following this event John McCallum, Canada's ambassador to China, stated that Meng Wanzhou had a strong argument against extradition for reasons including political interference from Donald Trump, the extraterritorial nature of the charges and the fact that Canada is not party to American sanctions against Iran. For context one one of those points, Trump himself has publicly stated he'd be happy to "intervene" in the case in exchange for a favorable trade deal from China. Following internal pressure John McCallum released a message stating, "I regret that my comments with respect to the legal proceedings of Ms Meng have created confusion. I misspoke. These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process.". He was then fired by Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau. This does not speak to whether the charges are legitimate or not, but rather that people involved in cases like this are often in positions of immense pressure that undermines the entire system. McCallum had a 20 year political career. It's likely that his firing has now come with an implicit political black listing as well, ending that career. Such can be the cost of honesty in such cases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/john-mccallum-canadian-ambassador-to-china-fired-huawei https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/john-mccallum-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/i-misspoke-canada-ambassador-to-china-regrets-saying-huawei-chief-had-strong-case https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/i-misspoke-can...
Hamuko 8y ago
>What about protection from extradition to the United States for bogus charges? Don't worry, the US now just has to wait until Halloween.
nocturnial 8y ago
tldr: No idea From [1, page 6, 25]: "Effective enforcement of Union law requires that protection is granted to the broadest possible range of categories of persons, who, irrespective of whether they are EU citizens or third-country nationals, by virtue of work-related activities (irrespective of the nature of these activities,whether they are paid or not), have privileged access to information about breaches that would be in the public’s interest to report and who may suffer retaliation if they report them." So there's some form of protection for non-eu citizens, but I have no idea how far it goes or how the rules will be interpreted in those cases. [1] www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0218/COM_COM(2018)0218_EN.pdf

vkou 8y ago

Assange isn't accused of being a whistleblower, he's being accused of actively aiding Manning in breaking into a computer. It's the difference between a journalist interviewing a burglar, and a journalist offering to hold the prybar, while the burglar is at work. His supporters are currently going through the most amazing calisthenics to justify that behaviour.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
GordonS 8y ago
Yes, but he did so to reveal war crimes that the US had buried - doesn't this still count as whistle-blowing?
- scottie_m 8y ago
  He’s not being charged for what he published, he’s being charged with conspiracy to “hack” as it were. If you’re asking whether something stops being a crime because you did it for virtuous reasons, obviously the answer is no from a legal perspective.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    That is what I'm asking - Assange aside, surely this can apply to any number of whistle-blowing scenarios, and whistle-blowing laws should provide protections from law under certain circumstances? Don't the ends justify the means, especially if far greater crimes are revealed as a result?

akerro 8y ago

Only will give extra protection if US agrees to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

walterstucco 8y ago

You can ask Ecuador or Russia to help, like Assange and Snowden did. I'm sure your freedom will be top priority there

ben_w 8y ago

The trouble with trumped-up charges, is that often outsiders don’t have the capacity to determine that they’re bogus. I mean, the point of extradition is a trial, and the point of a trial is to determine guilt. Of course, as you seem to he referring to Assange, just remember the UK is (it claims) leaving the EU, and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA.

mrec 8y ago
> and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA Bit offtopic for this thread, but I'd call that a very peculiar read of the situation. The Withdrawal Agreement that May is pushing involves a permanent de facto customs union with the EU, ongoing regulatory alignment with the EU, and military integration with the EU. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the US.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it's meant to be temporary until such time as a more permanent deal is agreed (although it's true it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made).
  - mrec 8y ago
    Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
    - pergadad 8y ago
      You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.

thefounder 8y ago

As far as I know if the action is not a crime in the home country there is no extradition process.

mpweiher 8y ago

Germany does not extradite its citizens to the US. It used to not extradite its citizens at all, but that was loosened so extradition to EU countries and international courts is possible. Furthermore there are limitations, I think these apply fairly generally: - the alleged crime must be a crime in both jurisdictions - no death penalty - no torture - a fair trial must be ensured - unusually harsh punishments would also be a blocker

gsnedders 8y ago
All but the first would be held by the ECtHR to be in violation of accused's human rights, therefore no signatory of the ECHR can extradite in any such case.

ChrisSD 8y ago

If the charges are deemed to be bogus then the extradition request won't be granted.

rjf72 8y ago
This is an idealistic world view. In reality many high profile cases are determined primarily by the political clout of the entities involved. When it comes to nations such as the US we are going to get what we want on issues that are deemed significant. The recent Huawei case had a particularly interesting illustration of this. Under US instruction Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the founder of Huawei and a high ranking executive of the company herself. Following this event John McCallum, Canada's ambassador to China, stated that Meng Wanzhou had a strong argument against extradition for reasons including political interference from Donald Trump, the extraterritorial nature of the charges and the fact that Canada is not party to American sanctions against Iran. For context one one of those points, Trump himself has publicly stated he'd be happy to "intervene" in the case in exchange for a favorable trade deal from China. Following internal pressure John McCallum released a message stating, "I regret that my comments with respect to the legal proceedings of Ms Meng have created confusion. I misspoke. These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process.". He was then fired by Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau. This does not speak to whether the charges are legitimate or not, but rather that people involved in cases like this are often in positions of immense pressure that undermines the entire system. McCallum had a 20 year political career. It's likely that his firing has now come with an implicit political black listing as well, ending that career. Such can be the cost of honesty in such cases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/john-mccallum-canadian-ambassador-to-china-fired-huawei https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/john-mccallum-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/i-misspoke-canada-ambassador-to-china-regrets-saying-huawei-chief-had-strong-case https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/i-misspoke-can...

Hamuko 8y ago

>What about protection from extradition to the United States for bogus charges? Don't worry, the US now just has to wait until Halloween.

nocturnial 8y ago

tldr: No idea From [1, page 6, 25]: "Effective enforcement of Union law requires that protection is granted to the broadest possible range of categories of persons, who, irrespective of whether they are EU citizens or third-country nationals, by virtue of work-related activities (irrespective of the nature of these activities,whether they are paid or not), have privileged access to information about breaches that would be in the public’s interest to report and who may suffer retaliation if they report them." So there's some form of protection for non-eu citizens, but I have no idea how far it goes or how the rules will be interpreted in those cases. [1] www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0218/COM_COM(2018)0218_EN.pdf