Slashdot Mirror

Funny that there's a treaty between the US and Germany for that specific purpose
http://www.mcnabbassociates.co...

ProtonMail is based in Switzerland, hence, US law is utterly irrelevant. I know that most /.ers are located in the US, but your country does not encompass the world.

Then you'd better talk to the people running your country, because they agreed to extradition with the United States.

IANAL

We already figured that out.

And if it's not a crime in the country where the person being sought is staying, it's generally not extraditable. Canada is one such country where the treat with the US allows Canada to refuse to extradite such a person. Another reason in the same treaty is if the extradition is of a political nature:

Article 4, section 1, subsection iii

(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

Additionally, Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the death penalty is in play unless the US agrees beforehand not to seek it, of if such judgment is made, not to follow through with it. And in the case of minor children, extradition can be refused if it is determined that such extradition

ARTICLE 5

If a request for extradition is made under this Treaty for a person who at the time of such request, or at the time of the commission of the offense for which extradition is sought, is under the age of eighteen years and is considered by the requested State to be one of its residents, the requested State, upon a determination that extradition would disrupt the social readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, may recommend to the requesting State that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor.

ARTICLE 6

When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

It can be argued pretty easily that Snowden, Manning, and Assange all have a defense under Article 2.1(iii) to have safe haven in Canada, since the whole mess has taken on a HUGE political angle, overshadowing everything else. Unfortunately, Obama's kill list has no geographical limit - it's fine to kill Americans anywhere in the world, even in the USA, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to due process. Looks like Obama is taking a page from Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook and ran with it.

More of THIS shit?

Ecuador DOES have an extradition treaty with the United States. You can go read its text here:

http://www.mcnabbassociates.co...

What Assange is relying on is the exclusion in Article 3, which reads: "The stipulations of this treaty shall not be applicable to crimes or offenses of a political character; and the person or persons delivered up, charged with the crimes specified in the foregoing article, shall not be prosecuted for any crime committed previously to that for which his or their extradition may be asked."

Of course, as you know, Sweden and the UK both have extradition treaties (treaty text: Sweden | ) with the US.

In Sweden's treaty, you'll find Article 5, which reads as follows (please note bullet 5 below):

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.
2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.
3. When the person sought has been or will be tried in the requesting State by an extraordinary tribunal or court.
4. When the offense is purely military.
5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.
6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.

In the UK's treaty, you'll find the following - note the part about "political opinions."

81 Extraneous considerations
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

So, a treaty between Ecuador and the US most certainly exists, and treaties exist which contain substantially similar wording between the US and each of Ecuador, Sweden, and the UK.

What it boils down to is that Ecuador is willing to play the part of little big man, "standing up" to the US in a case where it costs them nothing, but they can posture loudly about standing up to a big bully. If the US wanted him, he would be in US custody. And Ecuador, for all its posturing, will not remain particularly defiant if the US starts pressuring Ecuador with any real intensity. We send them a fair amount of foreign aid and military aid, and losing that income would probably be a lot less palatable to Ecuador than handing over Assange.

More of THIS shit?

Ecuador DOES have an extradition treaty with the United States. You can go read its text here:

http://www.mcnabbassociates.co...

What Assange is relying on is the exclusion in Article 3, which reads: "The stipulations of this treaty shall not be applicable to crimes or offenses of a political character; and the person or persons delivered up, charged with the crimes specified in the foregoing article, shall not be prosecuted for any crime committed previously to that for which his or their extradition may be asked."

Of course, as you know, Sweden and the UK both have extradition treaties (treaty text: Sweden | ) with the US.

In Sweden's treaty, you'll find Article 5, which reads as follows (please note bullet 5 below):

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.
2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.
3. When the person sought has been or will be tried in the requesting State by an extraordinary tribunal or court.
4. When the offense is purely military.
5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.
6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.

In the UK's treaty, you'll find the following - note the part about "political opinions."

81 Extraneous considerations
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

So, a treaty between Ecuador and the US most certainly exists, and treaties exist which contain substantially similar wording between the US and each of Ecuador, Sweden, and the UK.

What it boils down to is that Ecuador is willing to play the part of little big man, "standing up" to the US in a case where it costs them nothing, but they can posture loudly about standing up to a big bully. If the US wanted him, he would be in US custody. And Ecuador, for all its posturing, will not remain particularly defiant if the US starts pressuring Ecuador with any real intensity. We send them a fair amount of foreign aid and military aid, and losing that income would probably be a lot less palatable to Ecuador than handing over Assange.

More of THIS shit?

Ecuador DOES have an extradition treaty with the United States. You can go read its text here:

http://www.mcnabbassociates.co...

What Assange is relying on is the exclusion in Article 3, which reads: "The stipulations of this treaty shall not be applicable to crimes or offenses of a political character; and the person or persons delivered up, charged with the crimes specified in the foregoing article, shall not be prosecuted for any crime committed previously to that for which his or their extradition may be asked."

Of course, as you know, Sweden and the UK both have extradition treaties (treaty text: Sweden | ) with the US.

In Sweden's treaty, you'll find Article 5, which reads as follows (please note bullet 5 below):

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.
2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.
3. When the person sought has been or will be tried in the requesting State by an extraordinary tribunal or court.
4. When the offense is purely military.
5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense.
6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.

In the UK's treaty, you'll find the following - note the part about "political opinions."

81 Extraneous considerations
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

So, a treaty between Ecuador and the US most certainly exists, and treaties exist which contain substantially similar wording between the US and each of Ecuador, Sweden, and the UK.

What it boils down to is that Ecuador is willing to play the part of little big man, "standing up" to the US in a case where it costs them nothing, but they can posture loudly about standing up to a big bully. If the US wanted him, he would be in US custody. And Ecuador, for all its posturing, will not remain particularly defiant if the US starts pressuring Ecuador with any real intensity. We send them a fair amount of foreign aid and military aid, and losing that income would probably be a lot less palatable to Ecuador than handing over Assange.

The tap on the German Chancellor's phone line is not an illegal act for our intelligence services. It's what they exist to do.

What? ok, this one is easier to find. Because it wasn't just the German Chancellor, Snowden also revealed that we ordered espionage on Ban Ki Moon, the head of the U.N. And that's internationally illegal, per an convention that the USA is a signatory. Specifically, The U.N.'s property and premise is immune to search and confiscation.

Also, it's sure as shit illegal under German law, and US law, and we have an extradition treaty with germany, so that's an illegal action that can be prosecuted across state borders.

Do you remember why the bulk of the CIA's actions are clandestine? Because they're illegal. As in, "if this got out, we're going to deny you ever worked for the CIA or that we know you at all, because we can't be associated with that sort of blatantly illegal activity".
It's their job like it was their job to infect a bunch of poor black people with syphilis. Or like it was the job of Unit 761 to torture the Chinese. Or how Al Capone's hitmen were paid to shoot people. Yes, that is indeed what they were assigned to do. But that doesn't make it legal, and it certainly doesn't make it right.

I mean, you're right about the likely end-state of prisoner swaps. The spy agencies care more for their own than justice. But there's definately trials and criminal prosecution and prison-time before those deals happen. And if the USA didn't HAVE any german spies tucked away in a prison, like if there were no German agents to catch, then they'd be sitting a long time in prison.

The rules are simple, everybody collects on everybody.

And that doesn't make it legal.

Furthermore, while anyone is free to collect information, doing things like tapping wires, invading privacy, burglary, and home invasion are not legal.

BUT HEY! If this is just "part of the game", and the laws don't really matter, then who gives a shit if Snowden trampled the USA's privacy rights?

Who? What lives?

With regards to the German tap, combat troops if the contents of the tap results contained sensitive information about troop movements in Operations where we are working with the Germans.

....What? That is UTTER BULLSHIT. You're saying that the CIA not hearing where our ALLIES troops are moving would put our troops in danger? Are you nuts? They are allies fighting together in the same war/operation. If we want to know where their troops are moving, WE JUST GO ASK THEM! They don't want us to shoot them any more than we want them to shoot us. Because we're on the SAME BLOODY SIDE. You don't think our military's do any coordinating?

Wait, wait, are you suggesting the CIA is looking out for some sort of betrayal from Germany? Like the Chancellor is going to get a phone call and it's going to be along the lines of "it's time to backstab ze Americans! Let's ally with ISIS and fire on their Marines!" Because that's about the only scenario I could conceive of where a tap on the chancellor's phone would save our combat troops. And guess what? These sort of activities are the type of thing that would make Germany do that! (I mean, it would take a lot more than just this, but it's in that direction). If we have to worry about german troop movements, it's thanks to the CIA performing these sort of illegal operations.

Unless those member states

This is not a resolution by the member states. The member states are represented at the EU level by the EU Council of Ministers. The European Parliament is the (only) directly elected part of the EU structure, which often is at odds with the Council of Ministers (where the ministers often think more of national interests than of EU interests) and the Commission (which tends to do the opposite, or is too much steered by bureaucrats).

are willing to violate their extradition treaties with the United States, the resolution is more or less meaningless.

You piqued my interest, so I looked up the extradition treaty between the US and Belgium. It provides for exclusions for "political offences". If there would be sufficient political will, Snowden's offence could definitely be argued to constitute a political offence. There's also an exception possible if the requested state determines that the request is politically motivated.

So, while I doubt there would be sufficient political courage/will on behalf of the Belgian government to stand up to the US government in this case, there would not be any technical/legal problem as far as the extradition treaty is concerned (in my layman opinion).

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.?

Well, if you're ACTUALLY interested in seeing what the Swedish law says about extradition to the US, you could start by familiarizing yourself with the actual Swedish-US extradition treaty that's been in force since 1963.

After you've read through that, if you're STILL interested, you can go read the Swedish government's publications on what the European Arrest Warrant program entails. There's some good links there where you can actually read the EU's legislation about EAWs, as well as some factual information from Sweden about surrender to and from Sweden under EAW.

After that, you can go read the UK Magistrate Court's decision about the validity of the EAW, in which they upheld the validity of the EAW and ordered Mr. Assange surrendered to Swedish authorities. A little further digging will help you find both the UK High Court's decision as well as the UK Supreme Court's decision on his appeals related to the validity of the EAW.

After you've read all that, if you're REALLY interested in understanding how things work, you can go read even more of the full review of the details of the case, as well as a cogent, well-written piece by a real lawyer in the UK who talks about why Sweden doesn't just "come interview Assange in London."

do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Oh, you weren't ACTUALLY interested in learning anything about the ACTUAL facts of the case. You were just trying to repeat a pro-Assange soundbite. Silly me.