Brilliant post, doddles.
Assange to face extradition
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
Why hasn't he been extrodited to the US already, if that's his chief fear. As noted, the UK isn't exactly shy about letting the US have it's wicked way. The concerns about the EU arrest warrent accepted. no one seems to have answered why he's more likley to be sent to the US from Sweden than the UK.
Well they might have but I'm not reading 20 pages FFS.
Well they might have but I'm not reading 20 pages FFS.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Today in Sweden's main broadsheet two journalists wrote an opinion piece skewering the case agains Assange very well, it's disproportionality, etc. They then sabotage themselves by saying this is all due to men-hating state feminists, and, anyway, the women contacted Assange in the first place (!)
doddles
Appreciates the good eggs
My (non-expert) understanding is that extraditions have to served in the order in which they are requested. So the UK can't extradite him to the USA since Sweden got their request in before the USA. I understand Sweden also has an arrangement with the USA for "temporary surrender" under which people can be "lent" to the USA to face charges there without the need for formal extradition proceedings.
Regardless, my points above still stand. If both the UK and Sweden hadn't compromised their principles to kowtow to the USA, this simply wouldn't be an issue. *You* might not think that Sweden are going to extradite Assange to the USA, but clearly many people think that's a very real possibility, and it's not only the tinpot conspiracy theorists who think that, courtesy the recent appalling record of the UK and Sweden.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The UK also has a 'temporary surrender' agreement with the US - all EU countries do.
I don't understand what principles the UK and Sweden have dropped in order to apply for and then to comply with the terms of a european arrest warrant, nor what that has to do with renditions and so on. Are you simply saying that EAW should not have been issued at all? That there should be no investigation or charges concerning the rape allegations?
I don't understand what principles the UK and Sweden have dropped in order to apply for and then to comply with the terms of a european arrest warrant, nor what that has to do with renditions and so on. Are you simply saying that EAW should not have been issued at all? That there should be no investigation or charges concerning the rape allegations?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In brief - he isn't.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, there's been a whole lot of 'feminist-hunting' - one of the people who have made the allegations even had the cheek to be a christian-feminist! (See the stalkerly 'exhibit' from Goran Rundling linked to earlier in the thread as evidence of the inherent absurdity and untruth of the allegations).
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
The obvious solution is now for Ecuador to quickly indict and charge Assange and ask for his extradition. He could then go to Sweden and answer questionsc serve any sentence, and then Ecuador would be next in line, in front of the USA. He would then go to Ecuador, charges would be dropped and he could enjoy his refugee status. I'm not even joking.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Sweden doesn't have to agree to frivolous extradition requests for non-substantive reasons though. Ecuador would have to make a case for their request based on criminal grounds. Don't reckon they could.
doddles
Appreciates the good eggs
Wasn't aware of that. Are they equally easy to apply?
The principles they have compromised are i) signing up to extradition treaties that are blatantly one-sided and do not provide adequate protection to EU residents and ii) ignoring their own and international law in partaking of illegal rendition procedures.
I think the EAW as it stands is horrible, because there is no burden of evidence in order to have someone extradited within the EAW area. Assange certainly needs to face accusations. If the EAW wasn't such a horrible bit of law this would be more straightforward.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They are substantially the same.
Can you demonstrate i) and show how ii) effects this case?
Well, if he has to face the accusations the EAW is the instrument under which his extradition following his flight would take place. Wider criticisms of the sometimes minor nature of the offences pursued under EAW doesn't change that, it doesn't really change anything. The EAW is not the problem here - it's Assange's various flights that are the problem - and they would have taken place if the EAW was used (after the fact of his flight - after) or not. They would have taken place under an extradition system that operated exactly as you liked.
Can you demonstrate i) and show how ii) effects this case?
Well, if he has to face the accusations the EAW is the instrument under which his extradition following his flight would take place. Wider criticisms of the sometimes minor nature of the offences pursued under EAW doesn't change that, it doesn't really change anything. The EAW is not the problem here - it's Assange's various flights that are the problem - and they would have taken place if the EAW was used (after the fact of his flight - after) or not. They would have taken place under an extradition system that operated exactly as you liked.
doddles
Appreciates the good eggs
i) The House of Commons home affairs committee said so itself. e.g.:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/19/us-uk-extradition-agreement-one-sided-keith-vaz
ii) undermines their credibility in matters of protecting the rights of individuals against the long reaching tentacles of the USA. Seriously - can you not see how two countries supporting illegal rendition under request of the USA is not relevant to the current case?
Without i) and ii), Assange wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He certainly wouldn't be holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy right now, because even Equador would be able to find no justification for blocking his extradition to Sweden.
The two are not the same. Prior to the EAW, Sweden would have had to provide evidence that Assange had a case to answer. Under the EAW they do not. Under a properly formulated EAW, Sweden would have to interview Assange in the UK (live or via internet/teleconference) to compile enough evidence to charge him, at which point he could be extradited.
i) and ii) above are the main problems in the current case (and more broadly), but the EAW coupled with Swedish law requiring him to be in Sweden to be questioned has given him and his team another way out of facing charges.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's a member of the committee saying about the US/UK extradiotion process that, not the committee itself. He doesn't have a leg to stand on - regardless of your moral dislike (the credibility argument - which basically says the UK and the US are shit so let's just forget it) of the set up. But even more to the point, he is not subject to a US/UK extradition process. It has never happened. What has happened is that the process you condemn is the one that Assange has fought to be subject to - complaining that the situation in sweden is worse.
You are wrong that a EAW does not require any evidence to be presented - it requires the same as other extradition treaties. Namely evidence of either an enforceable judgement or evidence of an executable warrant in the applying state.
You are wrong that a EAW does not require any evidence to be presented - it requires the same as other extradition treaties. Namely evidence of either an enforceable judgement or evidence of an executable warrant in the applying state.
elbows
Well-Known Member
The gangs all there today, warming up for the 'main event' that may end up the equivalent of Macca singing at the opening olympic ceremony.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live
Chinny reckon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/aug/19/julian-assange-statement-ecuadorean-embassy-live
Chinny reckon.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Look at all the states from the neo-liberal to the andean wrapping themselves in the flag. You'd never guess there was an election in Ecuador in 6 months would you?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Assange over London.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Does this mean if we repress Tariq Ali he might leave too, never to return?
Deareg
Well-Known Member
Not one of the news networks that I have watched over the last couple of days have said that he can not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S nor has anyone been presented to refute the claims of those who say that this is on the agenda, so I feel that his reasons for fighting this extradition are well founded.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Note this one:
The same Murray who claimed on the day the asylum decision was reached that through his special channels he could confirm that The UK were going in militarily mob-handed as soon as they heard that decision. How can these people just walk away from such stuff time after time with their credibility intact amongst some people?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He can be extradited from sweden - anyone can, for criminal charges. They can't be extradited for political offences (as espionage comes under that). He and his supporters will claim that any process whatsoever is political and try to fight them. Rape is a political matter, but not in the way these freaks say.
And we're back where we started with people saying that he should be allowed to avoid the rape charges because of the bigger picture.
Deareg
Well-Known Member
I have not read a single post by anyone who says that he should avoid the rape charges (if they are ever made) yet you keep throwing this accusation at everyone who feels that he is right to fear extradition to the U.S.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
He isnt right to fear extradition though, for the reasons butchers states.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's exactly the position that is adopted when it's argued that he shouldn't go to sweden because he fears extradition to the US. It's an argument to just chop these allegations out of the issue, when they are the core of it. Leaving aside the rape allegations, just talking legally etc etc
JimW
支那暗杀团
For me it's that he can also be extradited/snatched or whatever as easily from the UK (or anywhere else), which leaves you reckoning the main reason he doesn't want Sweden on the travel plans is the sex assault accusations.
Deareg
Well-Known Member
Butchers is not a lawyer and if were not true someone would have been presented by now to refute it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I reckon if they followed though on the logic of fear of extradition being the main motivating and justifying factor in his actions then they should be arguing that he'd want to get to sweden sharpish.
But that ain't what it's about is it?
Deareg
Well-Known Member
Maybe that is why he entered the Ecuadorian embassy?
Similar threads
