6 ms·

UK govt should be refusing all US extradition requests, and suspending all trials until it is accepted Sacoolas be extradited to the UK.

orf 7y ago
I came to comment exactly the same thing. Someone who murdered a UK citizen then fled justice has been refused extradition by the USA, but the UK is supposed to extradite Assange? Come on.
- ur-whale 7y ago
  You're assuming the UK government has an actual choice in the matter. I don't think they do.
  - bilekas 7y ago
    Why wouldn't they exactly ?
    - belval 7y ago
      The parent is probably referring to Brexit, soon the UK will need to make a new trade deal with the US. Until that's done I doubt that we will see them say "no" to the US very often.
    - threeseed 7y ago
      UK desperately needs a trade deal with the US. In order for them to have regulatory divergence from the EU there will have to leave on WTO terms. Without US opening up as a market UK will struggle to avoid a long term economic recession. And as we know Trump doesn't look at trade in isolation. He looks at the overall relationship like a child would i.e. "are they doing what I want or not". So there is zero chance UK will do anything this year that isn't to Trump's liking.
      - bilekas 7y ago
        I'm curious what the UK could provide the US that would be much benefit for the US.. Tea ? The NHS might be on the table in the form of medicinal licencing within the UK or something, but I'm not sure what you mean..
        chinesempire 7y ago
        Assuming is always the worst of the decisions. https://www.uschamber.com/international/europe/us-uk-business-council/us-uk-trade-and-investment-ties https://www.uschamber.com/international/europe/us-uk-busines...
        adventured 7y ago
        > I'm curious what the UK could provide the US that would be much benefit for the US. Well the US imported $67 billion worth of goods alone from the UK in 2019. One of the six or seven highest figures among US trade partners; slightly higher than France. US services imports from the UK are typically around $40 to $50 billion. So, $110 +/- billion in total imports from the UK. A considerable sum (more so for them of course). The UK is also the largest single foreign investor into the US, representing 15% of all foreign direct investment. As individual countries go, the US is the largest importer of UK goods and services. They're the fourth largest export market for the US. It's a good economic relationship to maintain, clearly.
        bilekas 7y ago
        Nice, thats really news to me. Every days's a schoolday. Should have done some research myself !
      - thu2111 7y ago
        No it doesn't. The UK has never had a trade deal with the US before and is doing fine. Lots of countries don't have trade deals with the US or the EU and also do fine. Please don't hype this up. Trade deals aren't that powerful.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Nobody is accused of mudering anyone. Recklessly but accidentally causing someone else's death is not "murder", at least in common-law jurisdictions.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
The US, like other countries, do not want to set 'bad' precedents on diplomatic immunity. Afaik she had diplomatic immunity and despite the speeches on both sides the US will never extradite her because of the precedent that would set. In addition, in her case I suspect they also want to avoid any disclosure of the activities of her husband. The point actually also (or especially) applies in the UK: If she did have diplomatic immunity then what is the basis to prosecute (or even just sue) her in the UK?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Procecuting a foreign citizen that helped uncover war crimes is by all measures of a sane mind a much worse precedent. And that even while accounting for the "what goes around comes around"-rules of diplomacy.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Both the Foreign Office and the US State Department appeared to accept that she no longer had diplomatic immunity, and she wasn't a registered diplomat anyway -- she was the Intelligence officer's wife. Or at least that's what the Foreign Secretary was claiming at the tail end of last year. The surprise is either of them getting immunity for an airbase intelligence role outside London in the first place. I've seen several reports questioning whether the immunity was valid at all. But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. A crime is still there to be investigated and prosecuted, an extradition could proceed. Additionally US-UK extradition agreements both under Thatcher and later under Blair have been notable for their imbalance, but that seems rather academic here. A balanced discussion of the issues underlying: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-immunity-or-special-immunity https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-im...
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    They said that diplomatic immunity was no longer relevant. Which was a way to tell us that it did not matter anymore because she was in the US and the US would not extradite her. > But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. An extradition could proceed. They are claiming that for political reasons. That way it is up to the US to refuse extradition, which they obviously and predictably have, and be the 'bad guys'. The reality is that both governments knew full well from the start that nothing would happen to her the instant she left the UK. The reality is not popular with British public opinion so they are posturing.
caymanjim 7y ago
Yeah, instead of working through the issue like civilized adults, let's throw a tantrum. That always makes things better.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  You can't work through issues like an adult if the other side is represented by likes of Trump.
hatenberg 7y ago
Poodles don't get to disobey their masters
ComputerGuru 7y ago
Why would the USA extradite Sacoolas when they’re the ones that helped her flee the UK in the first place? They flew her out on a USAF plane: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn We do get mad when Saudi does the same thing, though.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  In this case, "because they want Assange." If one country refuses to play ball in extradition cooperation, another can exercise their own national authority to compel them with tit-for-tat. Another nation is one of the few institutions powerful enough to do so. It's one of the few advantages of having multiple independent and equally-accountable-in-the-law countries.
rjsw 7y ago
I have seen a suggestion that UK diplomats in the US should start driving on the left.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  How does risking the lives of innocent people in any way solve this problem?
stjohnswarts 7y ago
I don't think the UK government would do that with anything short of a death penalty possibility and that's not on the table in any way with this trial. They won't risk their extradition treaty with the USA over him.

orf 7y ago

I came to comment exactly the same thing. Someone who murdered a UK citizen then fled justice has been refused extradition by the USA, but the UK is supposed to extradite Assange? Come on.

ur-whale 7y ago
You're assuming the UK government has an actual choice in the matter. I don't think they do.
- bilekas 7y ago
  Why wouldn't they exactly ?
  - belval 7y ago
    The parent is probably referring to Brexit, soon the UK will need to make a new trade deal with the US. Until that's done I doubt that we will see them say "no" to the US very often.
  - threeseed 7y ago
    UK desperately needs a trade deal with the US. In order for them to have regulatory divergence from the EU there will have to leave on WTO terms. Without US opening up as a market UK will struggle to avoid a long term economic recession. And as we know Trump doesn't look at trade in isolation. He looks at the overall relationship like a child would i.e. "are they doing what I want or not". So there is zero chance UK will do anything this year that isn't to Trump's liking.
    - bilekas 7y ago
      I'm curious what the UK could provide the US that would be much benefit for the US.. Tea ? The NHS might be on the table in the form of medicinal licencing within the UK or something, but I'm not sure what you mean..
      - chinesempire 7y ago
        Assuming is always the worst of the decisions. https://www.uschamber.com/international/europe/us-uk-business-council/us-uk-trade-and-investment-ties https://www.uschamber.com/international/europe/us-uk-busines...
      - adventured 7y ago
        > I'm curious what the UK could provide the US that would be much benefit for the US. Well the US imported $67 billion worth of goods alone from the UK in 2019. One of the six or seven highest figures among US trade partners; slightly higher than France. US services imports from the UK are typically around $40 to $50 billion. So, $110 +/- billion in total imports from the UK. A considerable sum (more so for them of course). The UK is also the largest single foreign investor into the US, representing 15% of all foreign direct investment. As individual countries go, the US is the largest importer of UK goods and services. They're the fourth largest export market for the US. It's a good economic relationship to maintain, clearly.
        bilekas 7y ago
        Nice, thats really news to me. Every days's a schoolday. Should have done some research myself !
    - thu2111 7y ago
      No it doesn't. The UK has never had a trade deal with the US before and is doing fine. Lots of countries don't have trade deals with the US or the EU and also do fine. Please don't hype this up. Trade deals aren't that powerful.
umanwizard 7y ago
Nobody is accused of mudering anyone. Recklessly but accidentally causing someone else's death is not "murder", at least in common-law jurisdictions.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

The US, like other countries, do not want to set 'bad' precedents on diplomatic immunity. Afaik she had diplomatic immunity and despite the speeches on both sides the US will never extradite her because of the precedent that would set. In addition, in her case I suspect they also want to avoid any disclosure of the activities of her husband. The point actually also (or especially) applies in the UK: If she did have diplomatic immunity then what is the basis to prosecute (or even just sue) her in the UK?

raxxorrax 7y ago
Procecuting a foreign citizen that helped uncover war crimes is by all measures of a sane mind a much worse precedent. And that even while accounting for the "what goes around comes around"-rules of diplomacy.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Both the Foreign Office and the US State Department appeared to accept that she no longer had diplomatic immunity, and she wasn't a registered diplomat anyway -- she was the Intelligence officer's wife. Or at least that's what the Foreign Secretary was claiming at the tail end of last year. The surprise is either of them getting immunity for an airbase intelligence role outside London in the first place. I've seen several reports questioning whether the immunity was valid at all. But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. A crime is still there to be investigated and prosecuted, an extradition could proceed. Additionally US-UK extradition agreements both under Thatcher and later under Blair have been notable for their imbalance, but that seems rather academic here. A balanced discussion of the issues underlying: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-immunity-or-special-immunity https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-im...
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  They said that diplomatic immunity was no longer relevant. Which was a way to tell us that it did not matter anymore because she was in the US and the US would not extradite her. > But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. An extradition could proceed. They are claiming that for political reasons. That way it is up to the US to refuse extradition, which they obviously and predictably have, and be the 'bad guys'. The reality is that both governments knew full well from the start that nothing would happen to her the instant she left the UK. The reality is not popular with British public opinion so they are posturing.

caymanjim 7y ago

Yeah, instead of working through the issue like civilized adults, let's throw a tantrum. That always makes things better.

saiya-jin 7y ago
You can't work through issues like an adult if the other side is represented by likes of Trump.

hatenberg 7y ago

Poodles don't get to disobey their masters

ComputerGuru 7y ago

Why would the USA extradite Sacoolas when they’re the ones that helped her flee the UK in the first place? They flew her out on a USAF plane: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn We do get mad when Saudi does the same thing, though.

shadowgovt 7y ago
In this case, "because they want Assange." If one country refuses to play ball in extradition cooperation, another can exercise their own national authority to compel them with tit-for-tat. Another nation is one of the few institutions powerful enough to do so. It's one of the few advantages of having multiple independent and equally-accountable-in-the-law countries.

rjsw 7y ago

I have seen a suggestion that UK diplomats in the US should start driving on the left.

save_ferris 7y ago
How does risking the lives of innocent people in any way solve this problem?

stjohnswarts 7y ago

I don't think the UK government would do that with anything short of a death penalty possibility and that's not on the table in any way with this trial. They won't risk their extradition treaty with the USA over him.