 IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Frodo
Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months said by Frodo:All they want is guarantees that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, that there won't be a subsequent extradition to a 3rd country.
So, if one supports having the Swedish allegations resolved, then one would have to support the guarantees.
No, you're still missing the point. It would be extraordinary (I'm no lawyer, but possibly even unprecedented) for any nation to promise not to extradite somebody about hypothetical charges made by some other hypothetical nation. That's just not how it works.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
Reviews:
 ·WestNet Broadband
| reply to Ian
said by Ian:No. There's been no evidence presented anywhere, by Mr. Ellsberg, Assange's defense team, or anyone else that says this is anything but.....a rape investigation. Elaborate fantasies strewn about? Sure. Lots of those.
It's also worth noting, that Ellsberg turned himself in to US police and faced his accusers at trial, rather than cowardly holing himself up in some dip-shit Third World embassy...
Maybe then, while you are being straight forward and asking for facts, when then hasn't the govt of the ladies in question sat down to hear Julian's story, as there are no charges yet to be answered for there. They have heard 1 story and it has been offered to them to sit in a room and hear his story. You do not extradite people on discussions, I believe there are in fact no charges against him as yet for the night in question with 2 ladies at once.....I could add a little more here in personal comment, but it would be unfair to due process. 
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
·CenturyLink
1 edit | said by norwegian:...as yet for the night in question with 2 ladies at once... You are very generous calling them "ladies" but I digress 
My personal opinion is that Assange doesn't have enough, um, "manhood" to rape anything let alone a woman.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
| reply to Ian
said by Ian:No, you're still missing the point. It would be extraordinary (I'm no lawyer, but possibly even unprecedented) for any nation to promise not to extradite somebody about hypothetical charges made by some other hypothetical nation. That's just not how it works.
I'm no lawyer either. But if it didn't work this way, take the following scenario. Saudi Arabia charges me with murder, and they have an extradition treaty with the US. I'm delivered to Saudi Arabia, whereupon the murder charge is dropped and I'm off to Yemen on a blasphemy charge.
Something has to prevent scenarios like that or extradition treaties would be a joke. But, to be sure, I am interested in reading a legal analysis on Ecuador's proposal. But, my inkling is that Ecuador is within its rights. |
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | reply to norwegian
said by norwegian:Maybe then, while you are being straight forward and asking for facts, when then hasn't the govt of the ladies in question sat down to hear Julian's story, as there are no charges yet to be answered for there.
I am unfamiliar with Swedish law, but I would imagine the course of any investigation would be to investigate....then charge (or not). Certainly interviewing the suspect would be normal procedure, right? They talked to him once. Perhaps maybe they later found evidence that pokes holes in Assange's prior interview testimony? I don't know. Not privy to the details of Assange's criminal investigation. Perhaps their evidence is such that depending on his answers, there could well be an immediate arrest. Under those circumstances, I could understand why they might wish to do so in their own jurisdiction.
And from a simple taxpayer perspective, it makes no sense to expensively fly a whole investigative team from Sweden to wherever, instead of flying one person (the suspect) in. Especially considering you'd need to fly the team back, but not necessarily the rape suspect.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Frodo
said by Frodo:I'm no lawyer either. But if it didn't work this way, take the following scenario. Saudi Arabia charges me with murder, and they have an extradition treaty with the US. I'm delivered to Saudi Arabia, whereupon the murder charge is dropped and I'm off to Yemen on a blasphemy charge.
So you foresee your government backing you up and only agreeing to extradite you on murder charges to a foreign country that they have an extradition treaty with, if, and only if, that country promises to NEVER extradite you elsewhere, regardless of whatever those hypothetical charges might be?
Hope you're never in that situation, because I assure you, you'll be disappointed. Because, again, that's simply not how these things work.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
| reply to The Snowman
I think I found something. Rule of Specialty. » www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_···mcrm.htmand » www.frankrubino.com/CM/FSDP/Prac···pic&id=3“Additionally, most extradition treaties contain a provision known as the "rule of specialty." This rule provides that a person who has been extradited may be prosecuted only for the offense listed in the extradition request. The rule is to ensure that a person is not extradited on a pretext, only to be prosecuted for an offense for which extradition may not be allowed. The rule of specialty may be waived by the nation¹ from which a person is extradited.” This is a little bit different in that the secondary prosecution would be handled by a different jurisdiction (US) versus the primary jurisdiction (Sweden). However this doctrine of the Rule of Specialty increase the chances that Ecuador is within its rights in demanding assurances that Assange will only be prosecuted for what is alleged in the extradition request. The Rule of Specialty seems to be very similar to what Ecuador is demanding. ¹ Now the nation is Ecuador since Assange is under their jurisdiction. Ecuador is not allowing the Wikileaks publishing prosecution on the grounds that it is a politically motivated prosecution. |
|
Reviews:
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to Ian
We are still on the same page then.
So all I can offer to your reply:
So why then can't the country of the nationality of the ladies in question give a signed document releasing his back to Equator after the trial?
I believe if he is found guilty, if, then as long as he spends due time according to the judge, it doesn't matter which country he does the time in.
I'm having a hard time understanding the lack of commitment from the Swedish in filing the request of the country, Equator, to one of it's citizen's....which is what this is all bout. Anything after that for the US will have to wait. It seems very simple, but I digress, I'm no lawyer either.
But to hear the English were rumored to take by force is not due process, that is certain. It seems to be quite a human rights fiasco, and the outcome may affect the way we are all processed going forward.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by norwegian:We are still on the same page then.
So why then can't the country of the nationality of the ladies in question give a signed document releasing his back to Equator after the trial?
Because to do so is to squash an extradition order that has not yet even been filed, let alone requested. No Country is going to do that.
Nefarious CIA fantasies aside, nobody, including the US has asked for Mr. Assange's presence in their Country.
Do you honestly think Ecuador? wants him in their Country? Let's be honest here. Why is Ecuador doing this? Because Ecuador has some sort of long-standing tradition of freedom of the press? Heh. No. They want to thumb their noses at a first world nation, and to use him as a bargaining chip, if possible. Maybe for an oil deal. Who knows? They couldn't give a rat's ass about Assange.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
|
|
| reply to norwegian
said by norwegian:But to hear the English were rumored to take by force is not due process, that is certain.
From what I heard, the English wouldn't proceed with an assault on Ecuador's embassy without British Court approval. In other words, they would have made their intentions known, so that it could be challenged in their courts. I think they have pretty much backed down now. It was a pretty stupid idea anyhow, an idea that could have repercussions on British missions abroad. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by Frodo:It was a pretty stupid idea anyhow... Agreed. Even if a legal argument could've been made (dubious IMO) it would've set a really bad precedent.
The last (famous) embassy takeover was by Iranian "students" back in 1979.
The Brits just need to "wait it out". Assange isn't going anywhere.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
Reviews:
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to Ian
That is all hearsay, I thought you were after facts?
What remains is there has been no assurances by the Swedish, only demands. Do those demands have to be met when there is no charges to be faced.
There is nothing else to discuss or assume yet.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
| reply to Ian
said by Ian:Because to do so is to squash an extradition order that has not yet even been filed, let alone requested. No Country is going to do that.
That's not the criteria. Under the Rule of Specialty the date of offense is the material question. If the US tries to extradite Assange 3 months after he is delivered to Sweden, he can only be charged with something committed after he is delivered to Sweden, not something, such as publishing the State Department papers, that occurred before Assange is extradited to Sweden.
And, by the way, the Rule of Specialty is the "way" it works. I knew that there had to be something out there, and the Rule of Specialty is it.
»www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_···mcrm.htm
"Every extradition treaty limits extradition to certain offenses. As a corollary, all extradition treaties restrict prosecution or punishment of the fugitive to the offense for which extradition was granted unless (1) the offense was committed after the fugitive's extradition or (2) the fugitive remains in the jurisdiction after expiration of a "reasonable time" (generally specified in the extradition treaty itself) following completion of his punishment. This limitation is referred to as the Rule of Specialty. " |
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Frodo:said by Ian:Because to do so is to squash an extradition order that has not yet even been filed, let alone requested. No Country is going to do that.
That's not the criteria. Under the Rule of Specialty the date of offense is the material question. If the US tries to extradite Assange 3 months after he is delivered to Sweden, he can only be charged with something committed after he is delivered to Sweden, not something, such as publishing the State Department papers, that occurred before Assange is extradited to Sweden. You're misunderstanding the Rule of Specialty. It applies to a Country agreeing to only charge the defendant on the extradited charge. Not a hypothetical 3rd party Country's extradition request.
In other words, If I am being extradited to the US to answer charges of wire-fraud, from Canada, and Canada decided to ask for this rule (for some reason), the US could then not charge me with Capital murder once I was over the border. It is actually in these cases where it is usually asked for. Countries such as Canada will not usually extradite death penalty accused because they oppose the death penalty. But it says nothing about what should happen, if, while in the US, the United Kingdom wants me extradited there to answer for murder charges.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
| Here's the position of Ecuador
»wikileaks-press.org/press-confer···slation/
"In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [»www.publications.parliament.uk/p···s01.htm] is not waived. "
It's the same position. I think Ecuador is in the mainstream in demanding that Assange only be tried on what he's being extradited on. Like the other link said, the Rule of Specalization "is to ensure that a person is not extradited on a pretext".
The failure of Britain and Sweden to issue the guarantees increases the chances that Assange is being extradited on a pretext. We'll see what more lawyers have to say, but I find the Ecuadorian position persuasive. |
|
 Name GamePremium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
kudos:7 | reply to The Snowman
Anyone know who the guy might be sitting in back of him during the speech he read? |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by Name Game:Anyone know who the guy might be sitting in back of him during the speech he read?
Do you mean the guys inside the embassy that filmed Assange's speech?
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| said by StuartMW:said by Name Game:Anyone know who the guy might be sitting in back of him during the speech he read?
Do you mean the guys inside the embassy that filmed Assange's speech? No... the guy sitting out of sight holding onto his belt to pull him back into the sanctuary of the embassy should one of the Bobbies run over, grab him, and drag him out over the railing into British custody... 
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| quote:
Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3 | I think I heard his name was "Bob"... |
|
