4 ms·

WikiLeaks' Assange should be extradited, U.S. lawyers tell U.K. court

7 points by mattrighetti 5y ago

spacedcowboy 5y ago
Return Sacoolas[1] first. Diplomatic immunity (and even if she had it is debatable) is not supposed to be a shield against criminal activity within an ally nation. It's supposed to protect officials within a hostile nation. The UK has issued a red-notice to Interpol, marking her as a fugitive from justice, worldwide. I guess her supposed intelligence career is at least limited to US soil now. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56246511 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56246511 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/11/interpol-red-notice-issued-for-arrest-of-anne-sacoolas https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/11/interpol-red... Edit: Grammar [sigh]
- jjgreen 5y ago
  Hardly comparable, were Sacoolas to be extradited she'd face a few hundred pounds fine, at worst a couple of weeks in minimum security; she only killed an oik. Revealing US war-crimes is a whole different matter and will warrant 90 years in isolation.
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    Shouldn't be a problem returning Sacoolas then, right ? Simple, open and shut case ? Oh, wait, did the US say "She's never going back ?" Ah. Well.
- 7952 5y ago
  And we shouldn't have prid pro quo on such matters with an ally. Our legal and diplomatic systems should be able to asses each question on its merits. I feel conflicted on the Sacoolas question. Obviously she should face justice. However, I don't think someone should be prosecuted if no crime has been committed. And with diplomatic immunity that is the case. If we have a problem with that we should change the law. Of course the real issue is allowing so many spooks to operate in a legal in between place.
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    It's not Quid Pro Quo, it's that if you want extradition to work in one direction, you ought to be open to the idea of it working in the other direction too. If you're not, well, get lost then. Since the current adjudgment of the US Administration is that "She's never going back", I see no reason to allow extradition to the USA. Whether she in fact had diplomatic immunity has gone back and forth - to the point where it's still an open question. If she had diplomatic immunity, though, I can't see the case for the UK government asking Interpol to issue a red notice.

7 points by mattrighetti 5y ago

Return Sacoolas[1] first. Diplomatic immunity (and even if she had it is debatable) is not supposed to be a shield against criminal activity within an ally nation. It's supposed to protect officials within a hostile nation. The UK has issued a red-notice to Interpol, marking her as a fugitive from justice, worldwide. I guess her supposed intelligence career is at least limited to US soil now. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56246511 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56246511 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/11/interpol-red-notice-issued-for-arrest-of-anne-sacoolas https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/11/interpol-red... Edit: Grammar [sigh]

jjgreen 5y ago
Hardly comparable, were Sacoolas to be extradited she'd face a few hundred pounds fine, at worst a couple of weeks in minimum security; she only killed an oik. Revealing US war-crimes is a whole different matter and will warrant 90 years in isolation.
- spacedcowboy 5y ago
  Shouldn't be a problem returning Sacoolas then, right ? Simple, open and shut case ? Oh, wait, did the US say "She's never going back ?" Ah. Well.
7952 5y ago
And we shouldn't have prid pro quo on such matters with an ally. Our legal and diplomatic systems should be able to asses each question on its merits. I feel conflicted on the Sacoolas question. Obviously she should face justice. However, I don't think someone should be prosecuted if no crime has been committed. And with diplomatic immunity that is the case. If we have a problem with that we should change the law. Of course the real issue is allowing so many spooks to operate in a legal in between place.
- spacedcowboy 5y ago
  It's not Quid Pro Quo, it's that if you want extradition to work in one direction, you ought to be open to the idea of it working in the other direction too. If you're not, well, get lost then. Since the current adjudgment of the US Administration is that "She's never going back", I see no reason to allow extradition to the USA. Whether she in fact had diplomatic immunity has gone back and forth - to the point where it's still an open question. If she had diplomatic immunity, though, I can't see the case for the UK government asking Interpol to issue a red notice.