4 ms·

> the assurances would need to include “that the applicant (Assange) is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial,

> the assurances would need to include “that the applicant (Assange) is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”. I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ? Also, what kind of sentence would Julian face even if he get these assurances ? Could it be anything lower than life in jail ?

alexey-salmin 3y ago
They can also easily give him a life sentence while claiming to maintain the "assurances"
- gruez 3y ago
  That's... exactly what I expect given the assurance given? I'm not sure why there's any implication that the uk meant something else.
zarzavat 3y ago
Then the US would not be able to extradite anyone from a country that requires assurances ever again. Given that the US still has the death penalty for many crimes this would cripple its ability to extradite.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  Well that's unlikely to happen, US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want
  - bakuninsbart 3y ago
    Yeah, once you start kidnapping your allies citizens openly, a lot less goodwill will be returned. And the US isn't powerful enough to just bully the rest of the world without repercussions.
    - throwaway3839 3y ago
      Anymore?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Again, it isn’t about goodwill. The US totally dominates these countries and its times like this where its citizens really see that.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - xandrius 3y ago
    You'd think so and yet the rest of the world is what gives US its edge. Without it, they are to lose more than they win with Assange.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    > US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want I thought that was the case but I think Assange proves that's not as strong as many expected. I think it was reasonable to expect him being extradited 10 years ago, it's surprising he hasn't been yet. What I do think the US achieved was pressuring the UK into not extraditing him to Sweden. He was charged with crimes there that seemed much more clear cut – not espionage, just a regular case that anyone else would be extradited for. Whether you think that was a conspiracy or not, in isolation it was a justified extradition with no safety concerns, so the US clearly has some sway in preventing it.
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      The UK is known for having an extremely slow and thorough extradition process with a lot of appeals. For example, the case of Abu Hamza (Captain Hook).
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Polanski says hi.
- treprinum 3y ago
  If he is suicided ("sudden heart attack" etc.) that won't cause any issues wrt formal assurances (no official death penalty so all is good).
objclxt 3y ago
> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ? The English courts are permitted to take into account whether assurances for previous extraditions have been complied with: > When considering the adequacy of an assurance in any particular case, the courts should place appropriate weight on any assurance previously obtained in extradition requests from the same requesting country. http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0191/2016-1-20_Assurances_Review.pdf http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0191... ...this is of little comfort to Assange, but it does mean that there is an incentive for the country issuing the assurances to comply with them, otherwise their future extradition requests have a greatly increased chance of being denied.
master-lincoln 3y ago
nothing, apart from some officials expressing disappointment
Tomte 3y ago
> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ? Regarding the death penalty part: extraditions from Germany (and probably all of Europe) would immediately stop in capital cases. Those all rely on American assurances, and the first time it's broken, courts will disregard them for a long time.
- roenxi 3y ago
  "Would" is a strong word. "Might" seems a bit more reasonable. There is currently an escalating war in Europe and Germany has already rolled over and accepted the Nord Stream pipe as an act of God. Well, I don't actually know where their investigation is up to, but they're not acting like their infrastructure was attacked by a military. They're just taking it on the chin, probably some strongly worded diplomatic protests. If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now. With that so large in the rear view mirror, are they really in a position to start defying the US on extraditions? The US will claim this is a special case and Germany will probably go with it in practice.
  - tim333 3y ago
    >If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now The problem is which country? No one seems to know who did it.
  - flerchin 3y ago
    Huh, I always figured it was the Germans themselves that blew it up. To remove the blackmail angle.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      That is the most outrageous theory I've ever heard on the subject. I don't believe it but I do like the audacity of it.
    - simiones 3y ago
      Probably the Germans and the Russians working together, I would say. Makes the most sense, after all, what losing the billions they invested together in building it would hurt everyone else the most, right?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

alexey-salmin 3y ago

They can also easily give him a life sentence while claiming to maintain the "assurances"

gruez 3y ago
That's... exactly what I expect given the assurance given? I'm not sure why there's any implication that the uk meant something else.

zarzavat 3y ago

Then the US would not be able to extradite anyone from a country that requires assurances ever again. Given that the US still has the death penalty for many crimes this would cripple its ability to extradite.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
Well that's unlikely to happen, US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  Yeah, once you start kidnapping your allies citizens openly, a lot less goodwill will be returned. And the US isn't powerful enough to just bully the rest of the world without repercussions.
  - throwaway3839 3y ago
    Anymore?
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Again, it isn’t about goodwill. The US totally dominates these countries and its times like this where its citizens really see that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- xandrius 3y ago
  You'd think so and yet the rest of the world is what gives US its edge. Without it, they are to lose more than they win with Assange.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  > US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want I thought that was the case but I think Assange proves that's not as strong as many expected. I think it was reasonable to expect him being extradited 10 years ago, it's surprising he hasn't been yet. What I do think the US achieved was pressuring the UK into not extraditing him to Sweden. He was charged with crimes there that seemed much more clear cut – not espionage, just a regular case that anyone else would be extradited for. Whether you think that was a conspiracy or not, in isolation it was a justified extradition with no safety concerns, so the US clearly has some sway in preventing it.
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    The UK is known for having an extremely slow and thorough extradition process with a lot of appeals. For example, the case of Abu Hamza (Captain Hook).
- sofixa 3y ago
  Polanski says hi.
treprinum 3y ago
If he is suicided ("sudden heart attack" etc.) that won't cause any issues wrt formal assurances (no official death penalty so all is good).

objclxt 3y ago

> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ? The English courts are permitted to take into account whether assurances for previous extraditions have been complied with: > When considering the adequacy of an assurance in any particular case, the courts should place appropriate weight on any assurance previously obtained in extradition requests from the same requesting country. http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0191/2016-1-20_Assurances_Review.pdf http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0191... ...this is of little comfort to Assange, but it does mean that there is an incentive for the country issuing the assurances to comply with them, otherwise their future extradition requests have a greatly increased chance of being denied.

master-lincoln 3y ago

nothing, apart from some officials expressing disappointment

Tomte 3y ago

> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ? Regarding the death penalty part: extraditions from Germany (and probably all of Europe) would immediately stop in capital cases. Those all rely on American assurances, and the first time it's broken, courts will disregard them for a long time.

roenxi 3y ago
"Would" is a strong word. "Might" seems a bit more reasonable. There is currently an escalating war in Europe and Germany has already rolled over and accepted the Nord Stream pipe as an act of God. Well, I don't actually know where their investigation is up to, but they're not acting like their infrastructure was attacked by a military. They're just taking it on the chin, probably some strongly worded diplomatic protests. If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now. With that so large in the rear view mirror, are they really in a position to start defying the US on extraditions? The US will claim this is a special case and Germany will probably go with it in practice.
- tim333 3y ago
  >If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now The problem is which country? No one seems to know who did it.
- flerchin 3y ago
  Huh, I always figured it was the Germans themselves that blew it up. To remove the blackmail angle.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    That is the most outrageous theory I've ever heard on the subject. I don't believe it but I do like the audacity of it.
  - simiones 3y ago
    Probably the Germans and the Russians working together, I would say. Makes the most sense, after all, what losing the billions they invested together in building it would hurt everyone else the most, right?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]