Under the section of Rule of Specialty: "1. A person extradited under this Agreement shall not be arrested, detained, tried or punished in the jurisdiction of the requesting Government for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted nor be extradited by that Government to a third country..."
It would seem to me that there would have to be something to prevent two countries from acting in concert, otherwise the specialty clause would be circumvented. I'm not seeing anything that contradicts Ecuador's position.
If you peruse a number of extradition treaties, you will find the detailed wording varies with regard to the subject covered in your Rule of Specialty. Depending on when the treaty was negotiated and ratified, you may not even find that wording as such. In the case of some treaties (such at the original TIAS 5496 treaty with Sweden, unchanged by the later TIAS 10812 supplementary treaty mod), the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador.
But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden.
the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador.
But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden.
I think the problem is that the UK and Sweden believe it's none of Ecuador's business what or how they do or don't extradite accused criminals between themselves (or others), that being a subject governed by the negotiated and signed bilateral treaties of the nations directly involved. The treaties, and their interpretations, are a matter strictly for the nations involved (and their respective agencies and judicial systems) to interpret and enforce. Further, given that there is no current request of record for Sweden to extradite Assange to the US, Sweden and the UK believe it is unwarranted Ecuadorian interference in the extradition process between Sweden and the UK over the current sex charges pending or being evaluated in Sweden. Sovereign nations are extremely sensitive about not handing veto rights to third-party nations over their future legal and diplomatic actions... and giving the Ecuadorians the demanded assurance is tantamount to giving the Ecuadorians (or any other similarly-inclined third party nation) veto-in-principle over the interpretation of a bilateral treaty between Sweden and the UK, now and future. Nations simply resist that sort of thing.
There may or may not be a diplomatic resolution of all this. The merits of the case itself are being driven beneath the risks of setting precedent (which carries enormous diplomatic weight among nations). Frankly, I suspect the Swedes and Brits both just wish Assange would simply evaporate, but the precedents at stake are just too important diplomatically to bend very far.
Julian Assange row: Ecuador backed by South America
Ecuador's decision to grant Wikileaks founder Julian Assange asylum has been backed by foreign ministers from countries across South America.
A document agreed at the Union of South American Nations meeting in Ecuador said it supported the country "in the face of the threat" to its London embassy, where he has taken refuge.
The UK has said it could potentially lift the embassy's diplomatic status.
----------------
After Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino finished reading the final declaration from the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) summit, he joined hands with his fellow foreign ministers and raised them aloft.
The BBC's Will Grant said it was a a symbolic but important show of unity in a region which considers the UK government's approach over Mr Assange to have been colonialist and threatening.
Ecuador has described a letter from the British government drawing attention to the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 as "intolerable" and an "explicit threat".
Mr Assange called on the US to stop its "war on whistle-blowers" The act could allow the UK to lift the diplomatic status of Ecuador's embassy in London to allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange for breaching his bail terms.
the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador.
But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden.
Frodo, if the rule of specialty does apply as Ecuador thinks it does, then why is there a need for any kind of guarantee of anything at all since he's already protected. Further, why the worry of going to Sweden vs being in the UK and being extradited for the same thing.
What the UK should do is build a huge brick wall around the place,
Blake
You mean like the old wall around West Berlin, made my Stalin? Is that what and who inspired your suggestion? Yeah, dream on...
What the UK should do, they will do. And I hope they will do it, remembering history lessons.
Ya like that wall as it worked great for prevent stupid BS ideas from escaping from East Germany and brain washing the rest of the world. I can see it now we will have regular Julian Assange pontifications live from the Ecuadorean embassy balcony.
What the UK should do is build a huge brick wall around the place,
Blake
You mean like the old wall around West Berlin? Is that what and who inspired your suggestion? Yeah, dream on...
What the UK should do, they will do. And I hope they will do it, remembering history lessons.
Ya like that wall as it worked great for prevent stupid BS ideas from escaping from East Germany and brain washing the rest of the world. I can see it now we will have regular Julian Assange pontifications live from the Ecuadorean embassy balcony.
The wall was built by Russians to ... prevent stupid BS ideas from escaping from East Germany? Wow!!! With this weird understanding of the history you left me speechless... Now I see why you want to build new walls Thanks for clarification of where you state though...
The wall was built by Russians to ... prevent stupid BS ideas from escaping from East Germany? Wow!!! With this weird understanding of the history you left me speechless... Now I see why you want to build new walls Thanks for clarification of where you state though...
You seem to forget a simple concept, walls have two sides. I'm very well aware of who built the Berlin wall and why, and I even have a piece of it in my office, but while the Russians built the wall to prevent people from escaping, it also prevented their ideas from escaping into the west. I find it funny that Julian Assange wants to end the war against whistle blowers, but refuses to answer to those which accuse him of wrong doing. As I said no doubt we will be subjected to regular pontifications from this pompous hypocrite from the Ecuadorean embassy balcony, who thinks that because of his self elevated position to be above the laws and punishments he wishes to enforces on others. Seems to sound like an old communist regime doesn't it.
If I was punk band looking to get some free media, every time Assange wanted to deliver forth his crap from the balcony, I'd be setup and ready to rock and drown his crap out as soon as he opened his mouth. I would imagine at some point the neighborhood might complain about the noise etc and that could be the end of his little speeches.
Frodo, if the rule of specialty does apply as Ecuador thinks it does, then why is there a need for any kind of guarantee of anything at all since he's already protected. Further, why the worry of going to Sweden vs being in the UK and being extradited for the same thing.
As far as the 1st question is concerned, it probably has something to do with the fact that the sending country can waive specialty. Ecuador wants a guarantee that specialty won't be waived. As far as the 2nd question is concerned, I have no idea what the difference is between extradition from Britain to the US versus extradition from Sweden to the US.
That day, the 39-year-old Australian gave a seminar in Stockholm organized by the Social Democratic Party's Christian wing and titled "The First Casualty of War is Truth".
Miss A, 31, was working for the organization and acted as an unofficial go-between for Assange and journalists during his visit.
She also allowed him to stay with her from his arrival in Stockholm on August 11, according to a transcript of the women's account to police obtained by AFP.
Miss A and Assange had sex several times at her one-room Stockholm flat, according to Swedish tabloids, giving details that were blocked out of the police transcript.
Representatives of Swedish prosecutors told the British hearing that "unlawful coercion" occurred on August 14 because Assange held down Miss A in a sexual manner. They were not sure they wanted to (press charges), they wanted to get advice Defense lawyer Claes Borgstroem
Another encounter on August 18 was characterized as "sexual molestation", because Assange had sex with Miss A without a condom despite her "express wish" one should be used, they said.
Assange also "deliberately molested" Miss A on the same night "in a way designated to violate her sexual integrity", the British court heard.
Nonetheless, the WikiLeaks head stayed at Miss A's flat until August 20, even accompanying her to a party on August 15.
On her still active blog, the 31-year-old describes herself as "a political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur and freelance writer with special knowledge in faith and politics, equality matters, feminism and Latin America".
A Master's thesis on Cuba, her admiration for former Argentinean president Nestor Kirchner and a now-removed blog post on how to get revenge on an ex-boyfriend have led to a slew of cyberspace rumors about her motives for accusing Pentagon nemesis Assange.
"CIA agent, angry feminist/Muslim-lover, Christian fundamentalist, lesbian and desperately in love with a man, can one be all that at the same time?" she commented on her Twitter account earlier this month.
Miss W., 27, was also in the audience at Assange's talk on August 14, sitting in a bright pink jumper on the front row with a number of journalists.
Her background and occupation are not as well know as her co-accuser's, but her admiration for Assange and her encounters with him are described in detail in the police interview transcript.
She saw him on television discussing the release in July of classified U.S. documents on the Afghanistan war, and told police she found him "interesting, courageous and admirable".
When she found out the WikiLeaks head was speaking in Stockholm on August 14, she went to the event, insisted on spending the evening with Assange and friends after the talk, and ended up alone with him at the cinema.
There they flirted and he said he found her "very attractive," she told police.
Two days later, they travelled to Miss W's home in Enkoeping, some 50 kilometers (30 miles) northwest of Stockholm.
But Assange "spent the train ride looking at Twitter posts about himself" and by the time they arrived at her place, "the passion and excitement were gone", she told investigators.
The rape allegations stem from later that night at Miss W's home: the British court heard that Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was asleep.
The following morning, they had breakfast together, and "in an attempt to de-dramatize what happened", she made "sarcastic comments".
She then took him back to the train station and he promised to call her.
Defense lawyer Claes Borgstroem said the two women later discovered they had both had similar experiences with Assange and went to the police on August 20.
"They were not sure they wanted to (press charges), they wanted to get advice" and were also worried they could have contracted HIV, Borgstroem told reporters earlier this month.
"When they told the police officer, a woman, she realized that what (the women) were telling her about was a crime. She reported that to the public prosecutor who decided to arrest Assange," the lawyer said.
The following day, the story made the front page of tabloid Expressen, launching the scandal and its numerous ramifications.
I guess it depends on who and where....I know here if you sleep with a woman in her home and then with another in the same house, police aren't involved, but mates of the girls will tend to deal justice if at all. Not trying to say it is good......
.......but what surprised me in the article was the mention of CIA. Just happened to be out of town for a few days and still had numerous occasions together after the event as well.....something doesn't mesh...then they met and joined up to ask advice? Once you have 2 on one in a court process, there is no going back...why do you think police will always be in pairs....it gives strength to the events.
Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organisation who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Assanges legal troubles.
The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts, which form the basis of an extradition case against Assange, are that their encounters with him began consensually, but became nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in defiance of their insistence that he use a condom.
Assanges supporters have pointed to Swedish prosecutors flip-flopping in the case reviving allegations that had at one point been mostly dropped as more evidence of the manipulation of the case.
But the police report and dozens of interviews in recent months with people in Sweden linked to the case bolster, to some degree, the womens assertions that they were not put up to the charges by enemies of Assange as well as prosecutors claims that the reversal was quite normal. They say it resulted from different levels of prosecutors having different opinions on the seriousness of the allegations.
However, those who have questioned the womens allegations have cited the fact, supported by the police report, that the women involved seemed willing to continue their friendships with Assange after his alleged sexual misbehaviour until they discovered by talking to each other that they had both been sexually involved with him.
Seems like it was all too good to be true, and in dreams of faeries and flowers, love can be blind. There is nothing worse than a woman's scorn. Add to that a judicial system that protects women
In the general election of September 19, 2010, Fredrik Reinfeldt became the first conservative prime minister to be reelected although his center-right alliance could not gain an absolute majority. The Prime Ministers Moderate Party garnered 30.06 percent, far ahead of its previous result of around 20 percent. In a historic defeat, the Social Democrats won only 30.66 percent of the vote, far below previous levels of around 40 percent and their lowest percentage since World War I.
With its 2010 election, Sweden became the latest in a series of European nations where populist right-wing parties have entered parliament. Up until now, Swedish voters had not given the Sweden Democrats sufficient support to overcome the 4 percent constitutional threshold needed to enter parliament. The 2010 election is likely to mark the beginning of an era of sharper political division in Sweden.
1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot backed new Extradition Act Amendments making it easier for U.S.A to extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it.
2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences.
3. The protection of "political" motives has been weakened. If the charge is "terrorism" then "political" cannot apply to prevent extradition.
4. The U.S.A. recently expanded its definition of "terrorist" to include peaceful protesters - "Low level terrorism".
5. Under the new NDAA legislation, the U.S became a police state - citizens and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite detention applies.
6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish classified documents. Obama is now trying to label media who do so as terrorists.
7. Modifications to the act included changing "protection from death penalty" to "likelihood the death penalty would be carried out".
8. Note that the U.S.A is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that top 5.
9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months imprisonment.
10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e. evidence).
11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track "Temporary Surrender" clause.
12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process.
13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.
14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.
15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.
16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.
17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam to protect Julian from "Temporary Surrender" to the U.S.A via Sweden. Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.
THE head of the US Senate's powerful intelligence oversight committee has renewed calls for Julian Assange to be prosecuted for espionage.
The US Justice Department has also confirmed WikiLeaks remains the target of an ongoing criminal investigation, calling into question Australian government claims that the US has no interest in extraditing Mr Assange.
''I believe Mr Assange has knowingly obtained and disseminated classified information which could cause injury to the United States,'' the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein, said in a written statement provided to the Herald. ''He has caused serious harm to US national security, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.''
Seeking asylum in Ecuador Julian Assange. Photo: AP
Senator Feinstein's call for the Obama administration to move ahead with plans to prosecute Mr Assange came as a US Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, publicly confirmed that ''there continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter''. Advertisement
Mr Assange remains in Ecuador's embassy in London while its government assesses his application for asylum.
In a statement made last Friday, one of Mr Assange's British lawyers, Susan Benn, highlighted evidence of the existence of a secret US grand jury investigation targeting Mr Assange and other ''founders or managers'' of WikiLeaks.
The Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr, claimed last week there was ''not the remotest evidence'' of the US government wanting to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder.
On June 20, a US State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, denied any US involvement in diplomatic discussions relating to Mr Assange's asylum bid or extradition to Sweden. Yet when asked specifically about the US government's interest in Mr Assagne she said: ''We want to see justice served. Let's leave it at that.''
If you were to use that term, I would think there would be no hope for Mr Assange, and it would start a roller coaster ride down hill, whether innocent or guilty. And that needs to be addressed first and foremost.
As for revealing documents, it isn't the first time and it won't be the last time documents surface before the "Official Release of Documents" or what is left of them after the shredder has had a play.
There is nothing worse than a woman's scorn. Add to that a judicial system that protects women
Seems like there's a little misogyny going on here...
You did notice the people involved then too at all levels.
I have 2 daughters I care for dearly, and the 2 women have fathers that would feel the same, as well as his family and obvious concern of a mother....but it seems posting here has a modded user already.......sheesh.
I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act.
everything that weve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that thats a cover storywhatever substance there may be to that story.
he had offered either to be questioned by the prosecutor herself or by some representative of her in the Swedish embassy or the British embassy or by British police in London, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessaryall of that being refused. Why?
this man is charged with criminal charges by no countrynot by Sweden, not by Britain, not by the United States, although there may in fact be a secret indictment already waiting for him in the United States, being denied or lied about right now by my country. But no charges have actually been made public. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him chargedjust to get him questioned, rather, when hes offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy.
So I think thatin fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasnt been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture. The new National Defense Authorization Actand Im a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional.
What has hung over these proceedings and led to the offer of diplomatic asylum (not political asylum, as widely reported) is his claim that, once extradited to Sweden, he would be shipped to the US to stand trial for his part in the publication on Wikileaks of thousands of US government cables, and then possibly executed.
.......but what surprised me in the article was the mention of CIA.
This was in the context of her response on Twitter to people who speculated on her motives. That is, it appears she's writing in response to allegations that she was a CIA agent. As well as being a christian fundy. As well as being a muslim-lover. As well as being a lesbian. Etc.
That is, it's hardly surprising at all: if you take the view, as many have done, that it's all a set-up orchestrated by the USA, it is pretty much guaranteed that someone will say "she's a CIA stooge".
So you think it was just a "heat of the moment" comment on her behalf?
If they have copied her word for word, it would suggest she had fallen for him, and to find another woman in on the scene and in her house too. Dangerous grounds for any male.
So you think it was just a "heat of the moment" comment on her behalf?
No, I think that if someone says "you are a CIA stooge", it's perfectly reasonable to say (sarcastically), "yeah, right, I look exactly like a CIA stooge".
It's not a heat-of-the-moment comment, it's just a regular sort of comeback to someone who says something that the comebacker perceives as ridiculous.
Note I don't have any source for this except for the source quoted by you:
quote:"CIA agent, angry feminist/Muslim-lover, Christian fundamentalist, lesbian and desperately in love with a man, can one be all that at the same time?" she commented on her Twitter account earlier this month.
This does not mean she is admitting to being a CIA agent, angry feminist, muslim-lover, christian fundamentalist, lesbian, or desperately in love with a man. Rather, it looks like she's bemused by the catalog of contradictory accusations that have been made about her.
Why are you picking on the word "CIA" as opposed to, say, "muslim-lover"?
the wording simply indicates that there shall be no extradition to a third country unless the original requested country agrees.
Apparently, Assange didn't trust England to prevent extradition to a 3rd country, so he went with Ecuador.
But I think England and Sweden should give the assurances necessary to Ecuador so that this extradition can proceed. Otherwise, it's going to look more and more like this Swedish extradition request was a pretext. I don't see what the problem is, if the extradition was genuinely to deal with the allegations made in Sweden.
Frodo, if the rule of specialty does apply as Ecuador thinks it does, then why is there a need for any kind of guarantee of anything at all since he's already protected. Further, why the worry of going to Sweden vs being in the UK and being extradited for the same thing.
because the UK can waive the rule. Something Ecuador wan't assurances won't happen.
After all this time, someone finally sees a certain similarity.
Are You Being Served (extradition papers)? Julian Assange compared to John Inman character after speaking at Ecuador embassy with new haircut By Amy Oliver PUBLISHED: 07:27 EST, 20 August 2012 | UPDATED: 12:48 EST, 20 August 2012
With their shock of white blonde hair and boyish faces they look uncannily alike.
But there is one major difference between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the late actor John Inman.
As Mr Humphries in 1970s sitcom Are You Being Served the late, great Inman's catchphrase was 'I'm free'.
The same could not be said for Mr Assange who is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been granted asylum.