 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Frodo
Re: WikiLeaks.org is crippled under a massive DDoS. said by Frodo:... 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.
The problem is that Ecuador simply does not have the authority to rule on their view of the "big picture", apart from the confines of their UK embassy. They do not have the sovereign authority to make the UK abbrogate their extradition treaty obligations with Sweden, nor do they have that authority to make the Swedes abbrogate whatever their extradition obligations with the US. They can give local embassy assylum to Assange, based on their "big picture" opinion, but that's the legal extent of it. The UK has to answer to Sweden regarding its treaty obligations, and Sweden has to answer to the US about its obligations - Ecuador has no role in those. It can further be questioned as to what extent diplomats of the respective nations could even 'legally' abbrogate the extradition treaties that are in place, either in whole or in part (by limiting terms/"extent" of extradition) since those involve the judicial systems of all parties involved - but that's an even thornier issue, and diplomats have such a checkered record in that regard since time immemorial.
--
"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 |
