Broadband Tech > Security > Security > WikiLeaks.org is crippled under a massive DDoS.

Ecuador seeks 'guarantee' Assange won't be extradited to US from Sweden
»in.news.yahoo.com/ecuador-seeks-···408.html

“ "We've never said that Julian Assange shouldn't answer to the Swedish justice system nor contribute to the investigation into these supposed crimes," Correa said.What we have always asked for is a guarantee that there won't be a second extradition to a third country as that would put at risk Mr Assange's life and freedom," Correa added. ”

So I think Sweden and Great Britain should issue the guarantees, so that the extradition truly is for the crimes alleged in Sweden and not as some sort of conduit to charges in the US.

... It seems to me that countries could come up with a ham sandwich indictment anywhere to move a person to a jurisdiction with the desired extradition arrangements. So, I think Ecuador can look at the "big" picture.

My sense is that I agree with Ecuador. If Sweden and Britain want Assange to answer sexual assault allegations in Sweden, then confine the extradition to that matter.

My sense is that I agree with Ecuador. If Sweden and Britain want Assange to answer sexual assault allegations in Sweden, then confine the extradition to that matter.

In fact Swedish govt has so far rejected opportunity to sit and discuss the case with Julian in the embassy. I find that very strange when it is standard due process.

Standard due process, who's standard due process??

Blake

The doctrine of specialty is also often applied even when not specifically stated in a treaty. It means that once a person has been surrendered, he or she can be prosecuted or punished only for the crimes for which extradition was requested, and not for any other crimes committed prior to the surrender. The doctrine was first established over a hundred years ago, in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886). In Rauscher, the defendant, a U.S. citizen, was extradited from Great Britain for the beating death of a ship's crew member on a U.S. vessel but was indicted and tried on a charge of Cruel and Unusual Punishment based on the same act. Although the specialty principle was not specifically enumerated in the treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an accused "shall not be arrested or tried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings."

Extradition treaties often provide exceptions under which a nation can refuse to surrender a fugitive sought by another nation. Many nations will not extradite persons charged with certain political offenses, such as Treason, Sedition, and Espionage. Refusal to extradite under such circumstances is based on the policy that a nation that disagrees with or disapproves of another nation's political system will be reluctant to return for prosecution a dissident who likewise has been critical of the other nation. But, of course, not every criminal act will necessarily be protected. For example, some treaties provide that certain crimes, such as the assassination of a head of a foreign government, do not constitute political offenses that are exempt from extradition. The rise in airplane Hijacking, Terrorism, and hostage taking in the late twentieth century led many nations to enter into multilateral conventions in which the signing countries mutually agreed to extradite individuals who committed such crimes.

Since the 1980s, the international extradition process has been viewed by law enforcement authorities as too time-consuming, expensive, and complicated. It has also been criticized for frequently failing to bring fugitives to justice. As a result, some countries, including the United States, have turned to abduction to return a fugitive to a nation to be tried. Although its legality is questionable, abduction