dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


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

1 recommendation

reply to Frodo

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

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


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:3
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!