dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed


cmaengdewd

@cox.net
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.

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.

Frodo

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