No one should be naïve about the US, but this is a fallacious chain of reasoning. The US has not said whether it wants to detain Mr Assange, though it has had plenty of time to do so. If it wanted his extradition, the US might logically be more likely to make use of Britain’s excessively generous extradition treaty with the US – which has not happened – rather than wait until he was in Sweden, when both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application. And neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty. Ecuador’s own human rights record is also far from exemplary, as Human Rights Watch has made clear.
It also talks about how Assange may be damaging the diplomatic norms around refugee status and asylum, by claiming them when he is facing criminal, rather than polical, threats.
This Guardian editorial is very good, and it confirms that it would be easier to be extradited form the UK to the Us than from Sweden:
There’s a simple plausible explanation. Assange has more influential/connected supporters in the UK than in Sweden. So while it would be legally easier to extradite Assange to the US from the UK…the political will is not present to do so directly.
In addition, it is impossible to confirm or deny whether or not the US has already convened a Grand Jury against Assange, and what the outcomes of that Grand Jury has been/will be.
The single condition not to be placed into the hands of a third party unrelated to the women complainants? Seems not unreasonable to me. And it would significantly progress the criminal investigation against Assange while protecting judicial outcomes for the Swedish women complainants.
I missed the bit where Assange gave the promise to leave the embassy and face proceedings if Sweden made promises to change its laws and extradition treaties to his convenience. Got a link?
Yet the bizzare thing is CV is that all of us who have the brains god gave geese know that if it was anyone other than Assange the whole investigation and extradition would never have seen the faintest glimmer of daylight.
So why bother with the extradition? How about just getting on a plane to the UK and interviewing him there? I mean if the crime was all so serious and all….
Jesus RL, why would they interview him if the interview might result in formal charges, but formal charges couldn’t be laid?
What more would that do? They already had a European arrest warrant, extradition proceedings and successful defenses of appeals to those proceedings? An interview without the possibility of arrest and charges is a pointless exercise.
Police routinely fly to other countries to interview suspects before instigating extradition. Once they have done that then charges may or may not follow.
(Which to my understanding have still not been formally made…)
Indeed. Before extradition. Extradition succeeded, remember? And no extradition from Ecuador, because of their presidents’ new-found respect for human rights.
So are you bitching that the swedes aren’t doing enough for all sexual assault investigations, or simply that they are unfairly taking this one seriously?
And you call that a source? You get real: on the “not charged, just wanted for questioning” point for a start it ignores the fact that the UK courts said that if the allegations had been made in the UK, he would have been charged already, because the UK lays charges earlier in the process than Sweden does.
So are you bitching that the swedes aren’t doing enough for all sexual assault investigations, or simply that they are unfairly taking this one seriously?
States generally only pursue extradition for serious crimes. This one is not. The Swedish charge involved is not ‘rape’ … it is relatively new and lessor offence that does not have an exact equivalent in the legal systems we are familiar with.
Clearly the Swedes are treating Assange as an exceptional case.
It could have been written by someone at the Foreign Office.
Couple of questions for you:
1.) Did you think the dodgy dossiers preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq were “very good”?
2.) How much serious reading have you done on this case? (Warning: trawling theGrauniad‘s government-approved website in no way constitutes serious reading.)
Well, unsurprisingly Pussy Riot have been found guilty – of ‘hatred and religious emnity’ rather than political protest. (sort of ironic in a post-soviet nation, with a leader who appears to want to weaken other power blocs).
The Pussy Riot singers colluded under unestablished circumstances, for the purpose of offensively violating public peace in a sign of flagrant disrespect for citizens
No word on the sentence yet. The leader of the opposition and Gary Kasparov have been arrested – not for protesting, but for trying to attend the judge’s summing up.
Sentence: two years in prison, beginning from the day of their arrest. For singing an anti-Putin punk protest song in a church. The judge considers this lenient, especially because two of the women have children. Lyrics
I’m not saying they didn’t… well the risk of arrest was understood, but the hate crime, rather than protest charges might have thrown them. It’a a bit of an indicator about what Putin’s democracy means, is all (if one was needed). The arrest of the opposition leader and Kasparov shows a bit of concern about things getting out of control, I reckon.
Edit: Oh, and I think they’re enormously brave going ahead with it all, knowing the risks.
Pretty aware that a pro-democracy anti-Putin party in Russia is similar in style and influence to similar parties in Georgia and Ukraine have been, Muzza. No wonder the govt wants to keep a lid on it, aye what?
yes rosy, you are so naive – sucked in by corrupt western media who are framing putin and the Russian authorites. Can’t you see that Pussy Riot are tools of western powers (as are the western media), not to mention those dastardly schemers kasparov and medvedev
but why should Assange be immune from American justice if he has knowingly broken their laws?
It is to laugh, as the Americans themselves say. American er… justice, when it comes to a charge of espionage? Ma dai! You’re even stupider than I thought you to be.
Much better for him to have a friend in a president who can make it a political decision.
Do you want them to do more of it, or stop doing it altogether?
But if he gets sent back to Sweden, then charges can be laid after the interview. So there is a need for the interview. So charges can be laid.
why would they interview him if the interview might result in formal charges, but formal charges couldn’t be laid?
What more would that do? They already had a European arrest warrant, extradition proceedings and successful defenses of appeals to those proceedings? An interview without the possibility of arrest and charges is a pointless exercise.
So why bother?
And you call that a source? You get real: on the “not charged, just wanted for questioning” point for a start it ignores the fact that the UK courts said that if the allegations had been made in the UK, he would have been charged already, because the UK lays charges earlier in the process than Sweden does.
Yet more “sex by surprise” from teamassange.
Lyrics
yes rosy, you are so naive – sucked in by corrupt western media who are framing putin and the Russian authorites. Can’t you see that Pussy Riot are tools of western powers (as are the western media), not to mention those dastardly schemers kasparov and medvedev
You’re even stupider than I thought you to be.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32216.htm