dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Ian

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

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



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
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.


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

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!


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
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


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
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. "


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1

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.


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Ian

said by Ian:

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.

I found a state department document. (PDF)
»www.state.gov/documents/organiza···7313.pdf

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.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by Frodo:

...
I found a state department document. (PDF)
»www.state.gov/documents/organiza···7313.pdf

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.
--
"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

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1

said by Blackbird:

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.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

said by Frodo:

said by Blackbird:

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.
--
"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


cmaengdewd

@cox.net
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

said by Blackbird:

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.


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

Frankly, I suspect the Swedes and Brits both just wish Assange would simply evaporate...

They're not the only ones...
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
reply to cmaengdewd

said by cmaengdewd :

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.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to cmaengdewd

said by cmaengdewd :

said by Frodo:

said by Blackbird:

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.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--