5 ms·

Probably because there would be a big public outcry in the UK, in the event of a direct extradition to the US. Both because Wikileaks has a lot of support in th

Probably because there would be a big public outcry in the UK, in the event of a direct extradition to the US. Both because Wikileaks has a lot of support in the UK, and because the general public feels extradition laws are unfairly tilted to US advantage. Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition.

Xylakant 12y ago
> Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition. But they couldn't, that's the whole point.
- msandford 12y ago
  > But they couldn't You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case. What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not. But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads. Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules. Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them. Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.
  - jamespo 12y ago
    Intriguing scenario you've completely invented there
    - msandford 12y ago
      Are these the same treaties that "prevent" Greece from defaulting on their debt? You'll forgive me if I don't find them to be terribly binding, then.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Xylakant 12y ago

> Much simpler for the British government to pass Assange on to a third party, and then claim ignorance about any eventual extradition. But they couldn't, that's the whole point.

msandford 12y ago
> But they couldn't You've presupposed that the various organizations that are quite literally the only "legitimate" authorities in their respective jurisdictions are above bending/changing the rules ever so slightly for this one case. What prevents the UK from just storming the Ecuadorian embassy and arresting Assange? Hundreds or possibly thousands of years of foreign relations precedent and agreement. Is it worth breaking with that tradition to arrest Assange? Probably not. But whatever treaty "prevents" Sweden from extraditing him to the US without first sending him back to the UK is probably a lot flimsier. And easier to say "look we only sent him to Sweden since we knew he had to come back through the UK in order to be extradited to the US" and the UK govt officials look good, the US is happy and Sweden doesn't have the US do whatever it is they'll be holding over their heads. Before you say "but the law prevents this!" just look at the UN. Why is that body such a joke? Because none of the nations are really bound by whatever the UN rules because they're all sovereign governments. They are the ultimate authorities in the territories that they administer and as such are not accustomed to HAVING to play by any rules. Any rules they do play by are part of a complicated calculus to get what they also want. Diplomatic immunity and embassies being "sovereign" territory aren't because anyone really believes in it for anyone else. They just want it for themselves so they go along with it for others such that it doesn't get taken away from them. Torture is against international law but the US has been doing precisely that under two different administrations at gitmo. Given that this is a FACT please explain what MAKES Sweden not extradite Assange to the US after they get him from the UK.
- jamespo 12y ago
  Intriguing scenario you've completely invented there
  - msandford 12y ago
    Are these the same treaties that "prevent" Greece from defaulting on their debt? You'll forgive me if I don't find them to be terribly binding, then.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]