6 ms·

As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this. Change the countries and it's immediately apparent how absurd it is: Imagine a US citizen liv

As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this. Change the countries and it's immediately apparent how absurd it is: Imagine a US citizen living in Mexico exposed some Peruvian state secrets (doing something which isn't a crime in Mexico), and now Peru is applying pressure to extradite the guy. Chances are everybody involved would laugh in Peru's face, so why does the UK entertain this in Assange's case? Why doesn't Australia get involved?

bennyp101 5y ago
Now is a good time for a power grab? COVID is tightening restrictions on the public, it's nearly christmas, and in the UK we have the PM's Xmas Party to talk about. What better time to slip Uncle Sam a favour?
- kitd 5y ago
  Right now, we're also trying to get the US steel tariffs removed too.
- derlvative 5y ago
  This sounds like the "mashing together whatever two things are going on at the moment together and claiming they're related" theory of politics.
  - bennyp101 5y ago
    A hint of tongue in cheek with my comment :)
    - Quekid5 5y ago
      Poe's Law. Also... phew! :)
oefrha 5y ago
Welcome to international politics? Any kind of moral or justice is a farce, it’s all about power.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Extradition treaties are carefully worded, but yes, they are rooted in power politics. The judge in this case, followed the rule of the extradition treaty law... ...but then again, ALL laws are rooted in the initial power politics that set them in motion.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this. Extradition isn't unique to the United States, though. It's a common feature of most large country's legal systems. This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most extradition agreements would require that the offense be a crime in both countries, for example, and require a reasonable expectation that the punishment will be proportional to the crime (i.e. not petty political retribution). In your US-Mexicon-Peru example, Mexico would indeed be likely to hand over the US citizen to Peru if (and only if) the accused criminal act was a crime in both countries. Mexico has additional constraints that would forbid the extradition if the death penalty was a likely outcome, but if the likely sentence was a prison term, the evidence was sufficient, and the crime was reasonably serious then the person would be on their way.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Sure but it generally involves someone fleeing a country where they committed the crime.
- pydry 5y ago
  >This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most extradition agreements would require that the offense be a crime in both countries, for example. Ok but Anne Sacoolas ran over and killed a kid (definitely a crime here) and she wasn't extradited. While Julian Assange exposed a US war crime and is extradited because US espionage law literally counts that as spying. Not a crime in the UK. It really does appear that "at their leisure" is precisely how it works. There's the exercise of raw power with a thin veneer of false legal pretext on top designed to manufacture consent and convince those susceptible to the just world fallacy.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Plenty of people get extradited from the US to face charges abroad. Sacoolas is more an exception than a rule. Likely the only reason why she would not be extradited is because she's a "diplomat" (aka a spook or the wife of a spook). It kinda sucks that the US protects members of its intelligence services from criminal charges abroad, but the fact that it does that is kinda irrelevant to whether other, unrelated extraditions should go forward. I have to admit though it would be interesting if the UK played a game of tit for tat here. We will extradite Assange, but only after you send us Sacoolas. But they probably won't because Assange being prosecuted is also in their national interest, whereas Sacoolas facing her charges has little bearing on UK national interests.
akmarinov 5y ago
The UK is basically a US state at this point, so not sure why that's surprising.
OtomotO 5y ago
Because the United States are a super power, the current Imperium even. There were often such empires around the world. Rome for example.
michael1999 5y ago
Because the UK, and Australia are eager US vassals in this instance. They want to cooperate with the US government. The judges job here is to provide a fig-leaf of argument to justify what the executive clearly prefers.
the_other 5y ago
AUKUS The timelines of the extradition and the submarine deal don't match up exactly... but the idea that the English-speaking countries can rely on one another runs deep and long.
HKH2 5y ago
Julia Gillard threw him under the bus, and nobody's tried to drag him out ever since, as far as I'm aware.

bennyp101 5y ago

Now is a good time for a power grab? COVID is tightening restrictions on the public, it's nearly christmas, and in the UK we have the PM's Xmas Party to talk about. What better time to slip Uncle Sam a favour?

kitd 5y ago
Right now, we're also trying to get the US steel tariffs removed too.
derlvative 5y ago
This sounds like the "mashing together whatever two things are going on at the moment together and claiming they're related" theory of politics.
- bennyp101 5y ago
  A hint of tongue in cheek with my comment :)
  - Quekid5 5y ago
    Poe's Law. Also... phew! :)

oefrha 5y ago

Welcome to international politics? Any kind of moral or justice is a farce, it’s all about power.

q1w2 5y ago
Extradition treaties are carefully worded, but yes, they are rooted in power politics. The judge in this case, followed the rule of the extradition treaty law... ...but then again, ALL laws are rooted in the initial power politics that set them in motion.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> As a non-US citizen, that's what I find most troubling about this. Extradition isn't unique to the United States, though. It's a common feature of most large country's legal systems. This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most extradition agreements would require that the offense be a crime in both countries, for example, and require a reasonable expectation that the punishment will be proportional to the crime (i.e. not petty political retribution). In your US-Mexicon-Peru example, Mexico would indeed be likely to hand over the US citizen to Peru if (and only if) the accused criminal act was a crime in both countries. Mexico has additional constraints that would forbid the extradition if the death penalty was a likely outcome, but if the likely sentence was a prison term, the evidence was sufficient, and the crime was reasonably serious then the person would be on their way.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Sure but it generally involves someone fleeing a country where they committed the crime.
pydry 5y ago
>This doesn't mean that any country can prosecute foreign people with arbitrary laws at their leisure, though. Most extradition agreements would require that the offense be a crime in both countries, for example. Ok but Anne Sacoolas ran over and killed a kid (definitely a crime here) and she wasn't extradited. While Julian Assange exposed a US war crime and is extradited because US espionage law literally counts that as spying. Not a crime in the UK. It really does appear that "at their leisure" is precisely how it works. There's the exercise of raw power with a thin veneer of false legal pretext on top designed to manufacture consent and convince those susceptible to the just world fallacy.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Plenty of people get extradited from the US to face charges abroad. Sacoolas is more an exception than a rule. Likely the only reason why she would not be extradited is because she's a "diplomat" (aka a spook or the wife of a spook). It kinda sucks that the US protects members of its intelligence services from criminal charges abroad, but the fact that it does that is kinda irrelevant to whether other, unrelated extraditions should go forward. I have to admit though it would be interesting if the UK played a game of tit for tat here. We will extradite Assange, but only after you send us Sacoolas. But they probably won't because Assange being prosecuted is also in their national interest, whereas Sacoolas facing her charges has little bearing on UK national interests.

akmarinov 5y ago

The UK is basically a US state at this point, so not sure why that's surprising.

OtomotO 5y ago

Because the United States are a super power, the current Imperium even. There were often such empires around the world. Rome for example.

michael1999 5y ago

Because the UK, and Australia are eager US vassals in this instance. They want to cooperate with the US government. The judges job here is to provide a fig-leaf of argument to justify what the executive clearly prefers.

the_other 5y ago

AUKUS The timelines of the extradition and the submarine deal don't match up exactly... but the idea that the English-speaking countries can rely on one another runs deep and long.

HKH2 5y ago

Julia Gillard threw him under the bus, and nobody's tried to drag him out ever since, as far as I'm aware.