dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

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:3
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.--