4 ms·

It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant. If the terms of the t

It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant. If the terms of the treaty don't matter, then what's the basis for extraditing Assange in the first place?

cormacrelf 6y ago
The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties. Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure out what the legislature meant by unsavoury when they wrote it. Maybe a bunch of treaties had similar provisions using the word unsavoury, but the US one changed it, and you would analyse why they didn’t use the language again, or whether political offences as referred to by the US treaty would fit the bill... But according to the judgment, the Act is not ambiguous. There is nothing to look to the treaty for. Still, the basis for the extradition is not the treaty. Treaties bind States (ie countries) against each other. The remedy for a treaty law breach is stern words from the UN, maybe a fine, whatever. But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition. The only requirement imposed by the treaty is on the UK as a State to implement the treaty in domestic law, which is how countries like the UK comply with the terms of the treaty. International law does not bind local decision makers who decide whether the extradition goes ahead. It also does not bind parliament, which can refuse to implement a treaty or decide to deviate from it. It should also be quite plain that Assange is not a State party to the extradition agreement, being neither the literal United States nor Kingdom, so he does not have standing to object to the UK’s implementation, and of course, is in utterly the wrong court for that :) (That the UK is bound to comply makes for a strong suggestion that parliament actually intended to be true to the treaty when they implemented it, but this is only relevant where there is ambiguity in the domestic law requiring resolution, because of the primacy of legislative power and its ability to write laws in clear terms that can’t be wriggled out of.)
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK. > But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. There are enough other problems in this ruling to make me very skeptical of the judge's reasoning here. A few of them: * The judge says that it's an open question whether or not a journalist from The Guardian was the person who first published unredacted cables with informants' names. As was established beyond any doubt, it was The Guardian's journalist who first published the cables. The decryption key was the title of a chapter in his book, for crying out loud, and the encrypted archive was available online. Yet Baraitser treats this as an open question. Doing so allows Baraitser to argue that Assange put people's lives at risk. * The judge asserts that Pompeo's statements about going after Assange do not represent the views of the US government, and therefore cannot be used to argue that the prosecution is politically motivated. Pompeo is the former director of the CIA and the current Secretary of State. He's one of the most senior members of the government, and he gave an entire speech devoted to arguing that the government should go after Assange. To me, these are just unbelievable statements by the judge. The bottom line, though, is that the judge's ruling makes it possible for the US to go after investigative journalists in the UK who publish about the US military or intelligence apparatus. All the protections that journalists thought they had do not exist.
  - comex 6y ago
    > In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. Sure, in the US they are. The judge explicitly contrasts the US’s “monist” system with the UK’s “dualist” system where treaties are not law. Correspondingly, in the US treaties require Congressional approval to be ratified. In the UK, at least prior to 2010, treaties could be ratified by the executive branch alone, but Parliament’s approval was required to incorporate the terms into national law. (As of 2010, Parliament has a greater role in treaty ratification [1], but AFAICT that still doesn’t make them automatically national law. Anyway, the treaty in question was ratified prior to 2010.) [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05855/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
> It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant. Basic UK constitutional law: judges apply the law as written by Parliament, not the law as it ought to be written if the treaty had been properly implemented. If this leads to the UK not following their obligations, the remedy for this is Parliament need to modify primary legislation to satisfy their international obligations. All treaties need ratification by Parliament. (There are two major exceptions to this: the European Convention of Human Rights which was "domesticated" by the Human Rights Act 1998, and EU law which, pre-Brexit, was brought into UK law by the European Communities Act, and has now been integrated into UK law through the EU Withdrawal Act.)

cormacrelf 6y ago

The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties. Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure out what the legislature meant by unsavoury when they wrote it. Maybe a bunch of treaties had similar provisions using the word unsavoury, but the US one changed it, and you would analyse why they didn’t use the language again, or whether political offences as referred to by the US treaty would fit the bill... But according to the judgment, the Act is not ambiguous. There is nothing to look to the treaty for. Still, the basis for the extradition is not the treaty. Treaties bind States (ie countries) against each other. The remedy for a treaty law breach is stern words from the UN, maybe a fine, whatever. But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition. The only requirement imposed by the treaty is on the UK as a State to implement the treaty in domestic law, which is how countries like the UK comply with the terms of the treaty. International law does not bind local decision makers who decide whether the extradition goes ahead. It also does not bind parliament, which can refuse to implement a treaty or decide to deviate from it. It should also be quite plain that Assange is not a State party to the extradition agreement, being neither the literal United States nor Kingdom, so he does not have standing to object to the UK’s implementation, and of course, is in utterly the wrong court for that :) (That the UK is bound to comply makes for a strong suggestion that parliament actually intended to be true to the treaty when they implemented it, but this is only relevant where there is ambiguity in the domestic law requiring resolution, because of the primacy of legislative power and its ability to write laws in clear terms that can’t be wriggled out of.)

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK. > But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. There are enough other problems in this ruling to make me very skeptical of the judge's reasoning here. A few of them: * The judge says that it's an open question whether or not a journalist from The Guardian was the person who first published unredacted cables with informants' names. As was established beyond any doubt, it was The Guardian's journalist who first published the cables. The decryption key was the title of a chapter in his book, for crying out loud, and the encrypted archive was available online. Yet Baraitser treats this as an open question. Doing so allows Baraitser to argue that Assange put people's lives at risk. * The judge asserts that Pompeo's statements about going after Assange do not represent the views of the US government, and therefore cannot be used to argue that the prosecution is politically motivated. Pompeo is the former director of the CIA and the current Secretary of State. He's one of the most senior members of the government, and he gave an entire speech devoted to arguing that the government should go after Assange. To me, these are just unbelievable statements by the judge. The bottom line, though, is that the judge's ruling makes it possible for the US to go after investigative journalists in the UK who publish about the US military or intelligence apparatus. All the protections that journalists thought they had do not exist.
- comex 6y ago
  > In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. Sure, in the US they are. The judge explicitly contrasts the US’s “monist” system with the UK’s “dualist” system where treaties are not law. Correspondingly, in the US treaties require Congressional approval to be ratified. In the UK, at least prior to 2010, treaties could be ratified by the executive branch alone, but Parliament’s approval was required to incorporate the terms into national law. (As of 2010, Parliament has a greater role in treaty ratification [1], but AFAICT that still doesn’t make them automatically national law. Anyway, the treaty in question was ratified prior to 2010.) [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05855/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...

lawtalkinghuman 6y ago

> It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant. Basic UK constitutional law: judges apply the law as written by Parliament, not the law as it ought to be written if the treaty had been properly implemented. If this leads to the UK not following their obligations, the remedy for this is Parliament need to modify primary legislation to satisfy their international obligations. All treaties need ratification by Parliament. (There are two major exceptions to this: the European Convention of Human Rights which was "domesticated" by the Human Rights Act 1998, and EU law which, pre-Brexit, was brought into UK law by the European Communities Act, and has now been integrated into UK law through the EU Withdrawal Act.)