5 ms·

What is more likely to set Assange free is the US State Departments refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas back to the UK to face justice for the death of Harry Dun

What is more likely to set Assange free is the US State Departments refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas back to the UK to face justice for the death of Harry Dunne. If the US don't want to send her back then the UK has every right to decide the rather one-sided extradition agreement in place isn't working for them anymore and they can release Assange and send him back home to Australia.

dlgeek 7y ago
Up until the Sacoolas case, the US hadn't denied any UK extradition requests but the UK had already denied 10 requests, so that would be an interesting position to take. (Source https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/ https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the...)
- lukasm 7y ago
  Was it because death penalty?
- afthonos 7y ago
  A known exemption to extradition laws is the death penalty. Being that it is illegal in Europe, European countries will refuse to extradite people accused of capital crimes to the US unless the US government commits to taking the death penalty of the table. Old reference, might be out-of-date, but I think it’s still mostly true: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could-prove-hurdle-to-extradition-of-terror-suspects-from-britain https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could...
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    The UK gov's own website is a good source ;-) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review > Extradition is prohibited by statute if: > the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out) EDIT: The UK has also denied extraction even though the death penalty is off the table. Example being Gary McKinnon. C+P from Wiki > On 16 October 2012, then-Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons that the extradition had been blocked, saying that: > Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill [...] He has Asperger's syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    They've been finding interesting ways to soften that policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-governments-stance-on-the-death-penalty-shifting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-gove...
    - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
      Its not policy, its law [0]. Changing that would have to be put past MPs. What happened in the case you linked was people with dual citizenship who lost their UK citizenship (Which can't happen if you don't have dual citizenship) were captured outside of the UK (not extradited from the UK) and the home secretary said they will not oppose the death penality. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94
      - monocasa 7y ago
        They didn't have dual citizenship, only UK citizenship. The UK jumping through this hoop made them stateless, which is against international law. They are UK citizens, and only UK citizens, by birth. And there's all sorts of ways around the law here. Like tacking on a new charge once he's on US soil that they then seek the death penalty on. Then the state office goes "oh no, how could we have seen this coming", when it was the back room deal the whole time.
        Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
        El Shafee Elsheikh was born in Sudan who's father was a sudan citizen at the time of his birth, Alexanda Kotey on the other hand was born in the UK but would have dual citizenship in Ghana if his father still held Ghana citizenship. > A person born on or after 24 September 1979 and before 7 January 1993 is a citizen of Ghana by birth if— >(a) He/She was born in Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents or one grandparent was a citizen of Ghana; or >(b) He/She was born outside Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents was a citizen of Ghana. Even if their British citizenship has been illegally withdrawn (Which Alexanda Kotey appears to be fighting), the law is about the extradition of people from the UK. They were captured outside of the UK (and even the EU were similar extradition laws apply). My point being the UK Extradition laws arn't being loosened up by the backdoor.
jki275 7y ago
Anne Sacoolas has diplomatic immunity. There's zero relation between the two kinds of discussions.
- samwillis 7y ago
  She may have diolomatic immunity in theory (which is something that should exist and has very good reasons to), however this case shows quite clearly that there are circumstances where it is important to have exceptions. Diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from being influenced by their host country, this is about the death of a man and is in no way being used to influence her or her husband. The UK and US should come to some sort of compromise in this case, even if it is her standing trial remotely, via video, with the agreement that any sentence is cared out in the US.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    It's also probably not actually true that she was entitled to immunity. Which is why she left. If she was entitled to immunity she wouldn't need to leave, the most a host country can do about actual diplomats is tell them they're not welcome any more ("persona non grata") and then their sponsor will arrange for them to leave. If she was still in the UK they'd have arrested her already because she isn't actually immune. Her husband was a spook. But spooks aren't diplomats even if they have paperwork which insists otherwise as part of their cover. He didn't work at an embassy, he worked at a US site specifically for spying, a site that exists because it suits the British and American governments to have American spies in Britain doing this sort of thing, no diplomacy involved.
- retrac 7y ago
  The country sending a person with diplomatic immunity can waive said immunity to allow their diplomat to be prosecuted. It's actually pretty common to do so, when the alleged crime is serious, unrelated to their diplomatic service, and the ex-diplomat can expect a fair trial. At least between countries with reasonably good relations. Even where extradition isn't possible, cooperation in prosecution is usually expected. For example, a couple decades ago, a drunk-driving Russian diplomat killed a pedestrian in Ottawa. While Russia does not extradite their citizens, they did cooperate with the Canadian authorities to prosecute him for the crime in Russia, where he was convicted and imprisoned.
mam2 7y ago
Not sure he woule be better in Australia..

dlgeek 7y ago

Up until the Sacoolas case, the US hadn't denied any UK extradition requests but the UK had already denied 10 requests, so that would be an interesting position to take. (Source https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/ https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the...)

lukasm 7y ago
Was it because death penalty?
afthonos 7y ago
A known exemption to extradition laws is the death penalty. Being that it is illegal in Europe, European countries will refuse to extradite people accused of capital crimes to the US unless the US government commits to taking the death penalty of the table. Old reference, might be out-of-date, but I think it’s still mostly true: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could-prove-hurdle-to-extradition-of-terror-suspects-from-britain https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/u-s-death-penalty-could...
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  The UK gov's own website is a good source ;-) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review > Extradition is prohibited by statute if: > the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out) EDIT: The UK has also denied extraction even though the death penalty is off the table. Example being Gary McKinnon. C+P from Wiki > On 16 October 2012, then-Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons that the extradition had been blocked, saying that: > Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill [...] He has Asperger's syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights.
- monocasa 7y ago
  They've been finding interesting ways to soften that policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-governments-stance-on-the-death-penalty-shifting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/is-the-uk-gove...
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    Its not policy, its law [0]. Changing that would have to be put past MPs. What happened in the case you linked was people with dual citizenship who lost their UK citizenship (Which can't happen if you don't have dual citizenship) were captured outside of the UK (not extradited from the UK) and the home secretary said they will not oppose the death penality. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94
    - monocasa 7y ago
      They didn't have dual citizenship, only UK citizenship. The UK jumping through this hoop made them stateless, which is against international law. They are UK citizens, and only UK citizens, by birth. And there's all sorts of ways around the law here. Like tacking on a new charge once he's on US soil that they then seek the death penalty on. Then the state office goes "oh no, how could we have seen this coming", when it was the back room deal the whole time.
      - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
        El Shafee Elsheikh was born in Sudan who's father was a sudan citizen at the time of his birth, Alexanda Kotey on the other hand was born in the UK but would have dual citizenship in Ghana if his father still held Ghana citizenship. > A person born on or after 24 September 1979 and before 7 January 1993 is a citizen of Ghana by birth if— >(a) He/She was born in Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents or one grandparent was a citizen of Ghana; or >(b) He/She was born outside Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents was a citizen of Ghana. Even if their British citizenship has been illegally withdrawn (Which Alexanda Kotey appears to be fighting), the law is about the extradition of people from the UK. They were captured outside of the UK (and even the EU were similar extradition laws apply). My point being the UK Extradition laws arn't being loosened up by the backdoor.

jki275 7y ago

Anne Sacoolas has diplomatic immunity. There's zero relation between the two kinds of discussions.

samwillis 7y ago
She may have diolomatic immunity in theory (which is something that should exist and has very good reasons to), however this case shows quite clearly that there are circumstances where it is important to have exceptions. Diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from being influenced by their host country, this is about the death of a man and is in no way being used to influence her or her husband. The UK and US should come to some sort of compromise in this case, even if it is her standing trial remotely, via video, with the agreement that any sentence is cared out in the US.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  It's also probably not actually true that she was entitled to immunity. Which is why she left. If she was entitled to immunity she wouldn't need to leave, the most a host country can do about actual diplomats is tell them they're not welcome any more ("persona non grata") and then their sponsor will arrange for them to leave. If she was still in the UK they'd have arrested her already because she isn't actually immune. Her husband was a spook. But spooks aren't diplomats even if they have paperwork which insists otherwise as part of their cover. He didn't work at an embassy, he worked at a US site specifically for spying, a site that exists because it suits the British and American governments to have American spies in Britain doing this sort of thing, no diplomacy involved.
retrac 7y ago
The country sending a person with diplomatic immunity can waive said immunity to allow their diplomat to be prosecuted. It's actually pretty common to do so, when the alleged crime is serious, unrelated to their diplomatic service, and the ex-diplomat can expect a fair trial. At least between countries with reasonably good relations. Even where extradition isn't possible, cooperation in prosecution is usually expected. For example, a couple decades ago, a drunk-driving Russian diplomat killed a pedestrian in Ottawa. While Russia does not extradite their citizens, they did cooperate with the Canadian authorities to prosecute him for the crime in Russia, where he was convicted and imprisoned.

mam2 7y ago

Not sure he woule be better in Australia..