4 ms·

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 no

by PJDK 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.

by PJDK 11y ago

geon 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.