3 ms·

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 m

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...
thisrod 6y ago
> In the US, treaties are law. In Britain and Australia, they're not. (Except for the Tasmanian Dams Case.) Parliament has to, in effect, cut and paste the treaty into legislation, and only then will courts enforce it. Sometimes parliament refuses to do that, and sometimes they try but slip up.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> 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. The Treaty does not limit extradition permitted under other law, it creates an obligation. If another law requires extradition, the terms of the treaty are immaterial. > In the US, treaties are law. They are a kind of law, but unless they are “self-executing” treaties, they aren't law with much practical force until and except to the extent that implementing legislation is adopted. Now, IIRC, extradition treaties have generally been held to be self-executing in US law, but it's simply not generally the case that treaties are automatically judicially-enforceable laws in the US without separate legislative action. > The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. The US statute law governing extradition also allows extradition outside of any extradition treaties, but in far more limited circumstances (mostly,for non-US citizens/nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes against US citizens or nationals) than UK law does. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here except that the domestic law of the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom, which is unsurprising.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here That the judge is making a novel argument that there is no longer any barrier to extraditing people from the UK to the US for political offenses, despite what it clearly says in the treaty. As I understand it, this is a contentious issue, and most commentators had previously expected the political offenses exception to hold. The argument that the judge made - that the terms set out in extradition treaties are irrelevant in extradition hearings - does not appear to be as straightforwardly accepted as you're claiming. My understanding is that the Extradition Act of 2003 itself, without the treaty, is not sufficient to extradite Assange. If the treaty with the US did not also exist, there would be no extradition to the US. So to argue that the defendant derives no protections from the text of the treaty is quite a strange argument. If people can now be extradited from the UK to the US for political offenses, that is a major development with extremely worrying consequences. Now that the US is treating national security reporting as espionage, if UK journalists are no longer protected by the traditional political offenses exception, they are open to prosecution in the US.

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...

thisrod 6y ago

> In the US, treaties are law. In Britain and Australia, they're not. (Except for the Tasmanian Dams Case.) Parliament has to, in effect, cut and paste the treaty into legislation, and only then will courts enforce it. Sometimes parliament refuses to do that, and sometimes they try but slip up.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> 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. The Treaty does not limit extradition permitted under other law, it creates an obligation. If another law requires extradition, the terms of the treaty are immaterial. > In the US, treaties are law. They are a kind of law, but unless they are “self-executing” treaties, they aren't law with much practical force until and except to the extent that implementing legislation is adopted. Now, IIRC, extradition treaties have generally been held to be self-executing in US law, but it's simply not generally the case that treaties are automatically judicially-enforceable laws in the US without separate legislative action. > The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK. The US statute law governing extradition also allows extradition outside of any extradition treaties, but in far more limited circumstances (mostly,for non-US citizens/nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes against US citizens or nationals) than UK law does. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here except that the domestic law of the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom, which is unsurprising.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here That the judge is making a novel argument that there is no longer any barrier to extraditing people from the UK to the US for political offenses, despite what it clearly says in the treaty. As I understand it, this is a contentious issue, and most commentators had previously expected the political offenses exception to hold. The argument that the judge made - that the terms set out in extradition treaties are irrelevant in extradition hearings - does not appear to be as straightforwardly accepted as you're claiming. My understanding is that the Extradition Act of 2003 itself, without the treaty, is not sufficient to extradite Assange. If the treaty with the US did not also exist, there would be no extradition to the US. So to argue that the defendant derives no protections from the text of the treaty is quite a strange argument. If people can now be extradited from the UK to the US for political offenses, that is a major development with extremely worrying consequences. Now that the US is treating national security reporting as espionage, if UK journalists are no longer protected by the traditional political offenses exception, they are open to prosecution in the US.