5 ms·

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 co

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 11y 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.
- notahacker 11y ago
  It's a little difficult to reconcile the idea of fanatical Swedes doing everything within their power to get Assange into the US with the back-and-forth over whether to prosecute him and their failure to prevent him leaving the country after they'd decided to reopen the case.
  - msandford 11y ago
    I'm not saying that the Swedes are fanatical at all. Just that the idea that they CAN'T extradite (or let the US render) him to the US is delusional. A country can do whatever someone won't go to war over. That's the ultimate determining factor, "will someone invade/bomb/whatever us for this?" and if the answer is no, the country is free to do so! Remember that there was little/no international support for the US starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the US did so anyhow and since nobody has invaded the US for doing so, it seems that the US has "gotten away with it" at least so far as international law is concerned. Finally it doesn't have to be that the Swedes desperately want Assange to be extradited, but merely that someone from the US is pressuring them to keep reminding the world that "Assange isn't a good guy" from time to time. I'm not saying Assange is innocent, either. I honestly don't know. But to think that the US has an interest in hindering him, well, that's not unreasonable at all.
  - waps 11y ago
    Exactly. If they're willing to do this, why would an embassy provide protection ? As several recent incidents illustrated, it is in fact quite possible for armed men to walk into an embassy and do whatever the hell they want inside. Would Ecuador go to war over such an act ? No way.
    - jeltz 11y ago
      Sweden does not do kidnapping on foreign soil so it is way more likely that someone abuses the Swedish bureaucracy to illegally extradite someone. Sweden has done it before under the flag of the war on terror. Now I have no idea if this may happen to Assange but the his fear is not entirely unfounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...
jlebrech 11y ago
maybe there should be a guarantee of military action in case he is extradited (i.e getting the SAS to retrieve him.)

msandford 11y 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.

notahacker 11y ago
It's a little difficult to reconcile the idea of fanatical Swedes doing everything within their power to get Assange into the US with the back-and-forth over whether to prosecute him and their failure to prevent him leaving the country after they'd decided to reopen the case.
- msandford 11y ago
  I'm not saying that the Swedes are fanatical at all. Just that the idea that they CAN'T extradite (or let the US render) him to the US is delusional. A country can do whatever someone won't go to war over. That's the ultimate determining factor, "will someone invade/bomb/whatever us for this?" and if the answer is no, the country is free to do so! Remember that there was little/no international support for the US starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the US did so anyhow and since nobody has invaded the US for doing so, it seems that the US has "gotten away with it" at least so far as international law is concerned. Finally it doesn't have to be that the Swedes desperately want Assange to be extradited, but merely that someone from the US is pressuring them to keep reminding the world that "Assange isn't a good guy" from time to time. I'm not saying Assange is innocent, either. I honestly don't know. But to think that the US has an interest in hindering him, well, that's not unreasonable at all.
- waps 11y ago
  Exactly. If they're willing to do this, why would an embassy provide protection ? As several recent incidents illustrated, it is in fact quite possible for armed men to walk into an embassy and do whatever the hell they want inside. Would Ecuador go to war over such an act ? No way.
  - jeltz 11y ago
    Sweden does not do kidnapping on foreign soil so it is way more likely that someone abuses the Swedish bureaucracy to illegally extradite someone. Sweden has done it before under the flag of the war on terror. Now I have no idea if this may happen to Assange but the his fear is not entirely unfounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and...

jlebrech 11y ago

maybe there should be a guarantee of military action in case he is extradited (i.e getting the SAS to retrieve him.)