6 ms·

I think the main problem is Sweden would extraditing him to the US

by pantalaimon 12y ago

peteretep 12y ago
Why do you think that's more likely than the UK extraditing him to the US?
- vacri 12y ago
  Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries. The UK has at least some records of standing on principle - for example, they made a big stink about UK citizens sitting in Guantanamo Bay and the inhumane conditions they were in.
  - PJDK 12y ago
    What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? (and indeed what would the US law be that Assange would be charged under - and why has that not happened yet?) And what documented history?
    - geon 12y ago
      > What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? Probably the same one that permitted US lobby organizations to order an unconstitutional raid on tpb.
    - vacri 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and... As for what US law, I don't know. Mind you, I also don't know what US laws the Guantanamo Bay detainees were taken under. Or what laws the US does it's cough "extraordinary rendition" or cough "enhanced interrogation techniques" under. Doesn't mean the US doesn't do those things, simply because I can't cite those laws. Hell, here in Australia we're about to be screwed over by the Trans-Pacific Partnership - and even people who are really interested in that treaty can't get access to it. It's being made in secret with the US calling the tune, yet we're all going to have to live by it. So what if I can't name a law? There are laws, and then there are what countries manage to get away with. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not. In the case in the link above, Sweden quite happily ignored it's own legal processes for extradition.
      - PJDK 12y ago
        Your link is about a deportation of an illegal immigrant. Right or wrong the legality of that case is very different. And the rest of this is nothing to do with the price of eggs. The case here is that something has happened to get the UK to extradite to Sweden in order for Sweden to extradite to the US. That would all have to happen through legal means. Extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo is 1. such a wildly disproportionate and unpopular move that it is just not going to happen. 2. not any easier from Sweden
        vacri 12y ago
        I know that HN cuts off long links, but if you bothered to click through, you'd know that my link was actually about two people, not one. And it was carried out by US and Egyptian staff, with the Swedish allowing them to do it. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not normally handled by a two-nation team of agents, one of those being neither the host nor originating nation. That would all have to happen through legal means Again, if you read my link, you'd see that for the two men involved, Sweden ignored it's legal process. If you're going to debunk a link, it helps to read it first.
        PJDK 12y ago
        Right, but it's about deportation of Asylum seekers to their home country not about the extradition of someone to a third country. It just not the same thing. Edit: there their they're //sigh
        vidarh 12y ago
        I don't know how you manage to make up this distinction. If anything it is worse that Sweden were willing to ignore both Swedish and international law to hand over political asylum seekers that are subject to special legal protections and international conventions mean exactly to prevent the kind of acts that Sweden carried out, to a third country knowing they will be handed over to the country they're fleeing from at the risk of torture. Unsurprisingly torture happened. Not only that, but the treatment of the prisoners during the handover was a clear violation of Swedish law. The Swedish government and their agents carried out a criminal act. Nobody were punished for it. Foreign agents carried out criminal acts on Swedish soil. Nobody were punished for it. Years later it was uncovered the CIA were still carrying out illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports with the support of Swedish staff. Nobody were punished for it. Why should anyone trust that this government, or elements within it, will not violate international law again? We only know about the continued CIA flights and the Swedish governments half-hearted secret protests in the first place due to Wikileaks.
  - rjsw 12y ago
    The UK has laws that make it very easy to extradite people to the US.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      People have evaded extradition to the US for years with relative ease, a much lower profile than Assange, and a lot less heavyweight legal teams. The UK makes it very easy to extradite people to the US when the case is open and shut and/or there's no serious opposition. When someone seriously fights extradition, it's a quagmire.
  - Nemcue 12y ago
    "Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries." Political prisoners? No, that's absolute bullshit. Stop parroting other people without checking your facts. The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect.
    - vacri 12y ago
      Scroll down a little and see a link to two Egyptian asylum-seekers sent back to torture and prison, without due process. The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect. Speaking of incorrect narrative, how about you report on how many of those were political in nature (yes, some were), rather than simply assuming all extraditions are innately unjust? Extradition in itself isn't immoral - people do still commit crimes, and you shouldn't get away with literal murder just by hopping a border.
      - Nemcue 12y ago
        I read that link before I posted, and I'm well aware of that case. To be crass and frank; they were asylum-seekers. Total no-names in comparison to Assange. They were also not political prisoners in any capacity in Sweden (edit: in hindsight maybe you meant "political refugees"?). And it's disputable whether the course of action of extraditing them was an incorrect one, although the methods used were certainly questionable. Also note that both of the men involved were each rewarded financial reparation afterwards, and one of them received a permanent residence permit. At the time the case received a lot of attention, and there were multiple criminal investigations into it. It's not like no one cared when this surfaced.
        vacri 12y ago
        Now, why would mere asylum-seekers be snatched from the street by a mixed team of American and Egyptian staff? Anyway, what about my other charge, where you were implying that all extraditions from the UK to the US were political in nature? It's a bit rich to accuse others of not fact-checking when you're playing fast and loose with the truth yourself.
rbehrends 12y ago
Sweden cannot extradite him to the US without the UK's consent. So-called "specialty" rules generally prohibit the further extradition of a person to another country without the extraditing country's consent. From the ruling of Judge Howard Riddle in Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority: > If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.
- msandford 12y ago
  > Sweden cannot extradite him to the US without the UK's consent. That's not really true. Sweden _isn't supposed to_ extradite him without the UK's consent. But is the UK going to go to war over it? If not, then really Sweden can do whatever it pleases. "The most important point is that as long as it is externally marked to show its status, the "bag" has diplomatic immunity from search or seizure,[2] as codified in article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag Now reconcile that information with this new seemingly contradictory information: "Action required – Assange to be arrested under all circumstances," reads a handwritten briefing note photographed in the hands of one of the officers surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy. The note says Assange is to be arrested if he leaves the embassy in the company of another diplomat or if the Ecuadorians try and smuggle him out in the diplomatic bag." And even better, they contradict themselves on this policy from the get-go: "When it comes to its own diplomatic materials, however, the British government takes a harder line. It issued a strong protest when the sanctity of its own diplomatic bag was violated by Zimbabwean authorities in 2000." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assange/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assa... People violate the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations regularly it seems when it suits their purposes. The idea that Sweden is somehow prevented from doing something inside her own borders because of some toothless international "law" (what is the punishment for failing to abide by the agreement?) is laughable at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst.

I think the main problem is Sweden would extraditing him to the US

peteretep 12y ago

Why do you think that's more likely than the UK extraditing him to the US?

vacri 12y ago
Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries. The UK has at least some records of standing on principle - for example, they made a big stink about UK citizens sitting in Guantanamo Bay and the inhumane conditions they were in.
- PJDK 12y ago
  What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? (and indeed what would the US law be that Assange would be charged under - and why has that not happened yet?) And what documented history?
  - geon 12y ago
    > What would be the Swedish law that would be used for extradition? Probably the same one that permitted US lobby organizations to order an unconstitutional raid on tpb.
  - vacri 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and... As for what US law, I don't know. Mind you, I also don't know what US laws the Guantanamo Bay detainees were taken under. Or what laws the US does it's cough "extraordinary rendition" or cough "enhanced interrogation techniques" under. Doesn't mean the US doesn't do those things, simply because I can't cite those laws. Hell, here in Australia we're about to be screwed over by the Trans-Pacific Partnership - and even people who are really interested in that treaty can't get access to it. It's being made in secret with the US calling the tune, yet we're all going to have to live by it. So what if I can't name a law? There are laws, and then there are what countries manage to get away with. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not. In the case in the link above, Sweden quite happily ignored it's own legal processes for extradition.
    - PJDK 12y ago
      Your link is about a deportation of an illegal immigrant. Right or wrong the legality of that case is very different. And the rest of this is nothing to do with the price of eggs. The case here is that something has happened to get the UK to extradite to Sweden in order for Sweden to extradite to the US. That would all have to happen through legal means. Extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo is 1. such a wildly disproportionate and unpopular move that it is just not going to happen. 2. not any easier from Sweden
      - vacri 12y ago
        I know that HN cuts off long links, but if you bothered to click through, you'd know that my link was actually about two people, not one. And it was carried out by US and Egyptian staff, with the Swedish allowing them to do it. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not normally handled by a two-nation team of agents, one of those being neither the host nor originating nation. That would all have to happen through legal means Again, if you read my link, you'd see that for the two men involved, Sweden ignored it's legal process. If you're going to debunk a link, it helps to read it first.
        PJDK 12y ago
        Right, but it's about deportation of Asylum seekers to their home country not about the extradition of someone to a third country. It just not the same thing. Edit: there their they're //sigh
        vidarh 12y ago
        I don't know how you manage to make up this distinction. If anything it is worse that Sweden were willing to ignore both Swedish and international law to hand over political asylum seekers that are subject to special legal protections and international conventions mean exactly to prevent the kind of acts that Sweden carried out, to a third country knowing they will be handed over to the country they're fleeing from at the risk of torture. Unsurprisingly torture happened. Not only that, but the treatment of the prisoners during the handover was a clear violation of Swedish law. The Swedish government and their agents carried out a criminal act. Nobody were punished for it. Foreign agents carried out criminal acts on Swedish soil. Nobody were punished for it. Years later it was uncovered the CIA were still carrying out illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports with the support of Swedish staff. Nobody were punished for it. Why should anyone trust that this government, or elements within it, will not violate international law again? We only know about the continued CIA flights and the Swedish governments half-hearted secret protests in the first place due to Wikileaks.
- rjsw 12y ago
  The UK has laws that make it very easy to extradite people to the US.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    People have evaded extradition to the US for years with relative ease, a much lower profile than Assange, and a lot less heavyweight legal teams. The UK makes it very easy to extradite people to the US when the case is open and shut and/or there's no serious opposition. When someone seriously fights extradition, it's a quagmire.
- Nemcue 12y ago
  "Sweden has a documented history of sending political prisoners to other countries." Political prisoners? No, that's absolute bullshit. Stop parroting other people without checking your facts. The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Scroll down a little and see a link to two Egyptian asylum-seekers sent back to torture and prison, without due process. The UK has extradited multiple people to the US. Your narrative is incorrect. Speaking of incorrect narrative, how about you report on how many of those were political in nature (yes, some were), rather than simply assuming all extraditions are innately unjust? Extradition in itself isn't immoral - people do still commit crimes, and you shouldn't get away with literal murder just by hopping a border.
    - Nemcue 12y ago
      I read that link before I posted, and I'm well aware of that case. To be crass and frank; they were asylum-seekers. Total no-names in comparison to Assange. They were also not political prisoners in any capacity in Sweden (edit: in hindsight maybe you meant "political refugees"?). And it's disputable whether the course of action of extraditing them was an incorrect one, although the methods used were certainly questionable. Also note that both of the men involved were each rewarded financial reparation afterwards, and one of them received a permanent residence permit. At the time the case received a lot of attention, and there were multiple criminal investigations into it. It's not like no one cared when this surfaced.
      - vacri 12y ago
        Now, why would mere asylum-seekers be snatched from the street by a mixed team of American and Egyptian staff? Anyway, what about my other charge, where you were implying that all extraditions from the UK to the US were political in nature? It's a bit rich to accuse others of not fact-checking when you're playing fast and loose with the truth yourself.

rbehrends 12y ago

Sweden cannot extradite him to the US without the UK's consent. So-called "specialty" rules generally prohibit the further extradition of a person to another country without the extraditing country's consent. From the ruling of Judge Howard Riddle in Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority: > If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.

msandford 12y ago
> Sweden cannot extradite him to the US without the UK's consent. That's not really true. Sweden _isn't supposed to_ extradite him without the UK's consent. But is the UK going to go to war over it? If not, then really Sweden can do whatever it pleases. "The most important point is that as long as it is externally marked to show its status, the "bag" has diplomatic immunity from search or seizure,[2] as codified in article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag Now reconcile that information with this new seemingly contradictory information: "Action required – Assange to be arrested under all circumstances," reads a handwritten briefing note photographed in the hands of one of the officers surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy. The note says Assange is to be arrested if he leaves the embassy in the company of another diplomat or if the Ecuadorians try and smuggle him out in the diplomatic bag." And even better, they contradict themselves on this policy from the get-go: "When it comes to its own diplomatic materials, however, the British government takes a harder line. It issued a strong protest when the sanctity of its own diplomatic bag was violated by Zimbabwean authorities in 2000." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assange/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assa... People violate the Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations regularly it seems when it suits their purposes. The idea that Sweden is somehow prevented from doing something inside her own borders because of some toothless international "law" (what is the punishment for failing to abide by the agreement?) is laughable at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst.