I'm asking for ANY evidence that you've provided to support a single point. ANY. Where is the evidence the US is seeking extradition - do you have an extradition form? Has any government official said something about an extradition request? Have charges even been filed as a result of the investigation? Where is the evidence that it would be "easy" for Sweden to do this - do you have any actual legal scholars willing to explain how Sweden could extradite him on without breaking its own treaty obligations and causing a public relations shitstorm for itself, alongside the penalties and sanctions that would come with violating EU law? Do you have any actual evidence suggesting that Sweden is willing to do that when there is absolutely zero benefit to itself? Do you have any actual evidence that the UK "cannot" extradite him directly to the US, so are sending him along to Sweden to help out the US - as you asserted previously? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they would refuse direct extradition, but the same government officials refusing to extradite directly would sign off on a third-party extradition from Sweden?
I'm going easy on you - I'm asking you for ANY evidence that would support your conspiracy theory, or even a likely and logical chain of events. And frankly, "Because Assange says so," is all you've been able to offer.
When you say:
There is no possible way to give you the evidence you want.
That's you admitting: "I have no evidence, and every argument I'm making is based on guess, speculation, and my own personal biases, not on the actual facts of the actual situation and the actual laws applying to it."
So, thanks for conceding - I look forward to reading your retractions.
I keep hitting the "Parent" link, and see no substantiated evidence in the comments from you. In fact, the only links and evidence based on the actual laws is my own.
But keep telling yourself that your bullshit assertions are "fact." It's almost cute.
Right - like I said originally: no true scotsman could ever disagree with your points.
I notice you have no comment on the actual texts of the treaties I've quoted to you, and yet you continue blindly asserting that I'm the uninformed one who is making things up and has offered no facts to support his points.
I waste my time trying to explain this [...] You will never accept the obvious.
Right, because I'm not a true scotsman. You haven't explained anything. You have failed to provide any evidence, documentation, or even *logically consistent reasoning* that would support any of your fanciful little conspiracy theories - there is nothing "obvious" about your point, because your "point" is a house of cards built of speculation, supposition, and blatant falsehood. You've offered up NOTHING other than the blithe assertion that "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot who overlooks the obvious conclusion, namely, that I'm correct and everybody else is dumb."
Once it has him in its power Sweden can "temporarily" surrender him to US when the time is right, with or without UK authorization especially if he is a convicted criminal there. It will be much easier to sway public opinion when he is a convicted sexual offender.
I don't know how to get this through your thick skull any more clearly: NO THEY FUCKING CANNOT.
Temporary Surrender can ONLY happen in the context of an *extradition request*. The US MUST submit an extradition request for this to even be an option. Read the text of the treaty, specifically, Article VI. Go ahead, I'll wait. In case you're too dimwitted to know how to click a link, I'll even reproduce the *entirety* of Article VI from the US-Sweden extradition treaty for you here:
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may: 1) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or 2) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.
"Temporary surrender" may ONLY happen "if the extradition request is granted." THERE MUST BE an extradition request from the US for any 'temporary surrender' to happen. Now, what would the US request extradition for from Sweden? Riiiiiiight - the same thing they'd request extradition for from the UK, that is, "espionage." As you've correctly noted, the UK would almost certainly refuse that extradition request from the US, and Sweden would do the same thing because they specifically exempt "military and political crimes" as extraditable offenses in the original 1963 treaty (which the 1984 treaty, implementing 'temporary surrender', amends) - see Article V of the 1963 treaty between the US and Sweden.
And frankly, since you're so keen to suggest that all three parties are happy to disregard international law and do whatever they damn well please, then all the worry about "legal challenges" is moot, because if there really is such callous disregard for that law, then the US will simply fly in and kidnap him whenever and wherever they damn well please, regardless of any laws to the contrary. So why would they go through this incredibly convoluted conspiracy to get their hands on him in a manner that is completely illegal, when it's a lot easier to simply make him disappear? Remember - Sweden and the UK would have to be *willing conspirators in violating their own laws* to perform any sort of "sham extradition" - and they don't benefit from colluding in that way, at all. They would, in fact, be working to their own detriment.
Do you see why your little conspiracy theory holds no water yet? Either these countries are bound by the rule of law - in which case, their laws specifically PROHIBIT them from extraditing him to the US via "temporary surrender," or they refuse to be bound by any law that's inconvenient for him, in which case he will be kidnapped at gunpoint whenever it's convenient for the US to collect him, from wherever he happens to be sitting, and all these legal justifications are simple posturing to give him an excuse to dodge facing the charges that await him in Sweden.
What it boils down to is this, "fredprado" - my country may be corrupt to the bone as you sa
Yep, no true scotsman disagrees with you. We know. You haven't offered any "facts" - you've offered condescending name calling and senseless repetition of your own biased speculation as if they are facts.
Your assertion: "The UK couldn't have legally extradited him." Pure bullshit. The UK could easily extradite him, in exactly the same manner that Sweden could easily extradite him: the US simply has to file an extradition request in which they outline their case. This has to happen whether *the UK* or *Sweden* has him in custody.
Temporary surrender which you're so worried about may only be invoked *in the context of an extradition request.* Furthermore, it does not abrogate Sweden's obligation to seek the UK's approval to extradite him on to a third non-EU-member state, nor does it change the approval authority in the UK or Sweden one whit - the US must *first* request extradition; Sweden must then *agree* to the extradition request, *and also* seek the UK's approval - and that approval must be given by the *same* people in the UK who would approve or reject an extradition request filed directly by the US to the UK. Only once both Sweden and UK's approvals have been given, could he be extradited on to the US. And the US has not even filed charges - there is an "investigation," and every report citing official sources say that "an indictment is unlikely."
Now, even if they were to indict for espionage... that falls into the category of "political or military crime", which is, near-categorically, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK. It is also a capital crime, which is, again, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK.
Your argument that he is doing this out of some grave fear that the US will somehow extradite him away to languish in Guantanamo is bases SOLELY on speculation, and your assumption that THREE national governments would be SO eager to "destroy" Mr. Assange that they would ALL ignore their treaty obligations, international law, international relations, and their own citizens in order to get at him. Trust me - Mr. Assange is doing a bang-up job of destroying his credibility all on his own, all the US, Swedish, and Uk governments need to do if they want to "destroy" him... is wait and let him do it himself.
You can call me an idiot, and naive, and foolish all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you have offered NO FACTS to back up your assertions, and that your entire case is one big unfounded conspiracy theory. I really hope someday you'll mature enough to be able to separate political rhetoric from actual facts - it's a crucial skill that one acquires as one learns how the world works.
Actually, *everything* you have written is based on the true scotsman fallacy - you assume that ANYBODY who disagrees with you must be of limited intellect, and naive, because the "truths" you've divined - in spite of every fact pointed out to you by anybody with any knowledge of, you know, the actual law - are self-evident to 'anybody with a shred of intelligence.' This is amply evident in your blanket assertions of naivete, idiocy, ignorance, and stupidity in response to anybody who's dared to disagree with you, or point out facts that contradict your assertions.
When you keep asserting things without proof, we call that "taking it on faith." If you want to worship at the altar of Mr. Assange, feel free - but you'll have to excuse the rest of us for actually understanding the facts of the situation, and those of us who see that all of your articles of faith are predicated on the actual facts not existing, if we continue to doubt your blind assertions.
Not being an American myself, I didn't realize that they were at the time they made their comments, ex-elected officials (although, at the time Palin was still considering running in the next Presidential election), so consider my previous post officially ammended to "ex-elected officials and politicians". Regardless of how nutjobby they both may be, they were both (at one time, anyway) elected by the American public, and in positions of power.
So what your post should have said was, "Why do some people who are just as obnoxious as Mr. Assange when you point a camera and a microphone at them say these sorts of things, even though their opinions matter very little and are in no way a statement of official policy, suggest these things?"
And the answer to that is, by being incendiary, they keep that camera trained on them for a few more seconds. Mr. Assange's behavior certainly suggests that he understands this principle at least as well as Gov's Huckabee and Palin.
Also, the charge against Assange would not be "treason," the charge would be "espionage" - there's a difference. You don't have to be an american citizen to be convicted of espionage, you do for treason. And the US has a fairly high burden of proof to show that he was anything but a passive recipient of the information, unless Mr. Assange is MUCH more stupid than any of us give him credit for, and he put something like, "LOL SO HOW MUCH DO I PAY YOU TO GET ME THE SEKRIT DATAZ FUR MEEE SO I CAN PUBLISH DEM?" in a chat log.
So Sweden deciding to deny asylum and repatriate two asylum-seekers from Egypt back to their home country is some sort of extradition process now? You realize these are two entirely separate processes, don't you?
Sweden has a very open policy for extradition to the US
No more open than the UK's.
even has rules that they can not hand someone over if there is the possibility of the person facing a death sentence.
So does Sweden.
Second, what would the US warrant asking for Assange from the UK be? How would the US write up that Assange did a crime that is a crime in the US and the UK?
You tell us - obviously you're the one with the inside line on what indictments and evidence the US must have against Assange to request his extradition from Sweden or the UK.
And, yes, Sweden would need to consult the UK about the continuation of the extradiction, but this is really just a formality and even if ignored would have no real impact against any of those countries (if it even got reported).
Not true at all - the chain of approval in the UK for continued extradition is *exactly* the same as if the US had asked the UK to extradite him directly - there is no loophole here allowing some third level bureaucrat to rubber-stamp an extradition order. If Sweden ignored this, they would be in violation of their obligations to the UK, and the EU at large, as an EU member state, and would thus be subject to fines, penalties, and possibly even criminal charges for the people involved. There would most certainly be repercussions for Sweden deciding to ignore its obligations as an EU member in order to do a favor for the US which does not benefit Sweden in ANY imaginable way.
Ah yes. No true scotsman doubts the veracity of the conspiracy to nab Assange. With ironclad logic like that, it's hard to believe you haven't convinced the world.
And if Sweden goes to the UK and asks, "Is it okay if we extradite Assange on to the US from here under the EAW you sent him to us under," you don't think that will cause just as much backlash, for both Sweden AND the UK?
This doesn't even buy the UK the *semblance* of plausible deniability, because the EAW framework explicitly states that Sweden MUST seek the approval of the UK before sending him on to ANY non-EU member state while he is in their custody under the auspices of the EAW. There is no way that the UK can claim "they never approved it," unless you REALLY think that Sweden has cheerfully agreed to take the fall for the US AND the UK, and that all of the fallout, penalties, and sanctions that will be levied against them will be taken with a smile that says, "We don't care about international law, our treaty obligations, or the opinions of the world, as long as we can make the US government happy while not benefitting ourselves in any way, that's ALL we really need."
Also, please note that I think Sweden: 1) receiving an extradition request from the US; AND 2) agreeing that the extradition request is valid and worth seeking the UK's approval for;
Is incredibly unlikely to begin with. There is no evidence - zero, nada, zip, zilch - that the US has any evidence of wrongdoing on Assange's part, the only charge they could likely slap him with at all would be espionage (some extradition treaties *specifically* omit crimes such as this as extraditable offenses). Without evidence, specific charges, and a formal request (the collection & assembly of which would require the cooperation of dozens of people here in the US, as well as at least a handful in Sweden), there is no chance he will be extradited. I know you're going to bring up the "but what about rendition to Egypt," which just shows you're cherry-picking: that was a denial of a request for asylum and a repatriation after the denial - which, as you're no doubt aware NOW, since Mr. Assange is seeking asylum, is an entirely different process than extradition.
Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.
The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death
It's pretty clear that the US would have some very high hurdles to clear to even begin an extradition process - remember, this is legal terminology: "may not" is not "maybe yes, maybe no" - "may not" is "you are restricted from doin
Calling it a different name means nothing. Your argument that "temporary surrender isn't named extradition, so Sweden can do it," means less than nothing. Sweden is still bound by its obligations under the EAW to not surrender Mr. Assange unless it secures the consent of the UK. There is no special legal magic here, and the chain of consent is exactly the same as if the extradition request were submitted directly to the UK - it doesn't magically only require some third-level second assistant bureaucrat to stamp the right form if it's done through Sweden.
But please, go educate yourself. You could start here for a very thorough breakdown of the relevant laws, and even read the laws themselves, so you can understand exactly how foolish you sound:
And do try to get past your outrage when the author calls the "temporary surrender" thing a canard - I know Mr. Assange is your personal hero - and we all know that somebody who published the "Collateral Murder" video would never create a false story with the intent of deliberately misleading people - but the laws are cited with relevant links, and are fairly simple to read. And they demonstrate quite clearly that this argument that somehow Sweden could "legally" send him on to the US is complete nonsense.
US: "UK we intend to charge Mr. Assange with espionage, here's some trumped up evidence. Please extradite him to us." UK: "Right-o. Here you go, then."
The UK has never been particularly reluctant to extradite people to the US. Why is Assange so special?
Also, given that: 1) Sweden would REQUIRE UK approval to extradite him on to the US legally (generating a lot of confusion and bad publicity in the UK anyway) 2) Sweden choosing to extradite him to the US with or without Uk approval would ALSO generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity for Sweden;
your argument makes no sense. There is NO scenario where anybody benefits MORE by involving Sweden. Absolutely none. And before you start telling us all about Temporary Surrender, perhaps you can explain to us how Sweden having an extradition agreement with the US negates its other treaty obligations as an EU member under the EAW framework?
The "guiding principle" is that, when you commit espionage against ANY government, you can expect that government to want to get their hands on you. The only limiting factor is whether or not they can convince the country you're sitting in to take you into custody and hand you over.
Now as for espionage, "having" and "publishing" secrets is not espionage, you're right; "developing contacts in the military/intelligence community in order to get access to classified secrets" certainly crosses the line, and it would be up to the US to prove that Mr. Assange did that, if they wanted to make a case to extradite him to face espionage charges. I know it's fashionable here to blithely assert that "Assange didn't do that," but since you and I both have no real clue what evidence exists in the matter, the assertion is at best baseless speculation, and at worst, completely wrong. Assange claims he didn't do anything wrong, and I'm inclined to believe that he was a passive recipient, simply because he's smart enough to know better. Strangely, the US government, not contradicted his assertion - they are investigating the incident to see if there's evidence of wrongdoing, but there has been no allegations laid that have any legal basis. But again, since we don't know the facts of the case, we can't really conclude one way or another with any certainty.
Actually, no, it isn't. What's important is whether or not the US government can convince the government of "where he happens to be sitting" to extradite him.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting - it may make it easier to get away with, but it doesn't grant you some magical immunity.
Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
What a stupid, nonsensical question. Why? Two reasons:
1) "possession of cannabis" is not a crime which victimizes the government. Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the *US* government, you cannot be so fucking thick that you don't see the difference between "I have a joint," and "I have (and just published) all of your classified military secrets."
2) ANY country has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil to the extent that the government with actual jurisdiction over that foreign soil allows them. There's this thing called extradition... I'm surprised you haven't run across it before now, what with all this excitement about Mr. Assange.
And by "answer your questions," I assume you meant, "Refuse to answer your questions by being as obtuse as possible?" Because if all you've got is fear-mongering bullshit from "justice4assange," well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, too.
It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.
SINCE WHEN does Sweden's treaty with the US trump it's treaty obligations as an EU member? If Sweden passed him along to the US, it would ABSOLUTELY, CLEARLY, and UNEQUIVOCALLY be violating its obligations to the UK and the EU as a member fo the EU. Which do you think is more important to Sweden - the goodwill and love of America, or the goodwill and love of the UK, and the rest of Europe?
Those links do nothing to explain why the UK - which happily extradites people to the US - is suddenly unable or unwilling to extradite him to the US, but will happily extradite him to Sweden, knowing full well - as part of this bizarre Illuminati conspiracy - that he's going to be shipped on to the US?
Ecuador has granted him diplomatic asylum, a practice that's been more or less unheard of outside of South America for 50+ years. The UK has not recognized Ecuador's right to grant this asylum, and under the existing treaties and laws, if the UK makes a formal request for Ecuador to hand him over, they pretty much have to, or face dissolution of their embassy and ejection of their embassy officials. The granting of "asylum" by Ecuador is an opportunistic photo op for them, and a self-serving bid to avoid prosecution (NOT persecution) by Mr. Assange.
If the "powers that be" were as riled up as you seem to think, there would be extradition requests from the US in to the UK government already. There are not.
Or, you wait for him to leave the embassy he was granted asylum in, and arrest him then, deport him to Sweden, and let him face the charges.
Or, you wait for Ecuador to be pressured into handing him over (my bet, personally), since the practice of granting diplomatic asylum has been pretty much dead outside of South America for the last 50 years, and under the treaties the UK and Ecuador have (since we're all such fans of abiding by the terms of treaties), Ecuador would pretty much HAVE to turn him over if a formal request were made from the UK for them to do so.
A stay of execution is not an unconditional pardon.
It is a procedural thing, and one which is required before any charges can be filed against the suspect.
So yes, they have to interview murder suspects before filing charges. Typically, this is done after they take the suspect into custody, where he remains until his trial. If *every* crime requires this interview (and it does), and we lend any credence to your assertion that "if you need to conduct an interview, it can't be that serious a crime," then by defintion no crime is serious, and Sweden would be a lawless wilderness ruled by brute force.
The interview is required before filing charges, period. Full stop.
Thanks for the link - it's nice to see some actual information to support the claims. But a key line in that story jumps out at me in the Google translation: "Serbia is not an EU member but said prosecutor Ewa Korpi still has hopes for a relatively quick decision: 'As far as we know the suspect agrees to extradition and that makes it a simpler system in the management,' she says."
So, how are the circumstances different? 1) UK & Sweden are both bound by the EAW framework, which MAY stipulate a different process than with Serbia, since Serbia is not a party to the EAW framework; Is there something in the Serbian treaty that allows for it that the EAW treaty may not allow? 2) Were the terms of the interview untenable? We haven't seen the actual offer made to Sweden, just that "an offer was made." It's possible that, again, Mr. Assange was trying to dictate terms, and the Swedish government was unwilling to agree with them. 3) Is this simply a pissing contest, where the prosecutors have decided they simply aren't going to be told how to conduct their investigation by the suspect, even if they COULD do it his way?
I think it's reasonable to ask the Swedish prosecutors to explain why they're unwilling to interview him in the UK at this point, certainly - there is precedent. But I'm unwilling to conclude that it "must" be some sort of conspiratorial collusion with the US driving it without more information.
I don't understand this argument - are you saying that the police shouldn't have the right to detain, interview, and ask questions of a suspect or other person-of-interest in a criminal matter?
The right against self incrimination is NOT immunity from arrest or detention, and does not provide you with any reasonable expectation that you will never be asked questions - it just gives you a way of saying "I choose not to answer that question, on grounds that it may incriminate me."
The right against self-incrimination is not specifically laid out in the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Sweden is a party), but Article 6 does lay out the minimum rights for a "fair trial," and the right against self-incrimination has typically been held to be a corollary of the protections offered there.
He has the right to refuse to answer questions, but he does not have the right for that refusal to mean "oh well, we'll drop the charges then!" He can refuse to answer questions, and make the prosecution show all the evidence required to confirm his guilt (or *fail to show* that evidence, resulting in dismissed charges or a not guilty verdict), but he can't refuse to show up for someone to ask him the questions as long as he's within the reach of Swedish jurisdiction - and he is, in the UK.
Sweden is at the mercy of whatever international agreements they've signed with the country he is currently in.
Yes, the EAW framework, which allows Sweden to file a request with the UK to take him into custody, and surrender him to the Swedish authorities. Which is precisely what they've done. They are not, and never have been, at the mercy of Mr. Assange's offer to have the prosecutors "come interview him at a place of his choosing."
I've heard the same thing, and been unable to find any supporting documentation - I'd be happy to see information about it, and I've asked in a couple other Wikileaks/Assange articles posted here, but never seen any response.
I've also asked for confirmation of the meme that seems to be going around that "his accusers aren't even cooperating with police anymore," but nothing aside from a speculative article initially posted by Crikey.com has supported that argument.
So, to all the supporters of Mr. Assange, any actual documentation supporting the following two arguments would be greatly appreciated - I've been unable to find it via Google, and I've yet to see any actual sources provided:
1) Some verifiable statement from one or both of Mr. Assange's Swedish accusers indicating that they are not cooperating with the prosecution in this matter, or a statement from the prosecution or police indicating the same.
2) Some verifiable confirmation that Sweden HAS conducted these sorts of pre-charge-filing interviews overseas before (such as in Serbia, mentioned above?), or that, at the very least, confirmation in the law that the interviews MUST be held in Sweden, or, MAY NOT be held elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm asking for ANY evidence that you've provided to support a single point. ANY. Where is the evidence the US is seeking extradition - do you have an extradition form? Has any government official said something about an extradition request? Have charges even been filed as a result of the investigation? Where is the evidence that it would be "easy" for Sweden to do this - do you have any actual legal scholars willing to explain how Sweden could extradite him on without breaking its own treaty obligations and causing a public relations shitstorm for itself, alongside the penalties and sanctions that would come with violating EU law? Do you have any actual evidence suggesting that Sweden is willing to do that when there is absolutely zero benefit to itself? Do you have any actual evidence that the UK "cannot" extradite him directly to the US, so are sending him along to Sweden to help out the US - as you asserted previously? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they would refuse direct extradition, but the same government officials refusing to extradite directly would sign off on a third-party extradition from Sweden?
I'm going easy on you - I'm asking you for ANY evidence that would support your conspiracy theory, or even a likely and logical chain of events. And frankly, "Because Assange says so," is all you've been able to offer.
When you say:
That's you admitting: "I have no evidence, and every argument I'm making is based on guess, speculation, and my own personal biases, not on the actual facts of the actual situation and the actual laws applying to it."
So, thanks for conceding - I look forward to reading your retractions.
Please point out just one post in this chain that contains an actual, supported-by-evidence fact that you have supplied. Just one.
I keep hitting the "Parent" link, and see no substantiated evidence in the comments from you. In fact, the only links and evidence based on the actual laws is my own.
But keep telling yourself that your bullshit assertions are "fact." It's almost cute.
Please provide a single fact, logical connection, or other piece of evidence to substantiate your own claims, and maybe you will be believable.
Then again, since you can't...
Right - like I said originally: no true scotsman could ever disagree with your points.
I notice you have no comment on the actual texts of the treaties I've quoted to you, and yet you continue blindly asserting that I'm the uninformed one who is making things up and has offered no facts to support his points.
Right, because I'm not a true scotsman. You haven't explained anything. You have failed to provide any evidence, documentation, or even *logically consistent reasoning* that would support any of your fanciful little conspiracy theories - there is nothing "obvious" about your point, because your "point" is a house of cards built of speculation, supposition, and blatant falsehood. You've offered up NOTHING other than the blithe assertion that "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot who overlooks the obvious conclusion, namely, that I'm correct and everybody else is dumb."
I don't know how to get this through your thick skull any more clearly: NO THEY FUCKING CANNOT.
Temporary Surrender can ONLY happen in the context of an *extradition request*. The US MUST submit an extradition request for this to even be an option. Read the text of the treaty, specifically, Article VI. Go ahead, I'll wait. In case you're too dimwitted to know how to click a link, I'll even reproduce the *entirety* of Article VI from the US-Sweden extradition treaty for you here:
"Temporary surrender" may ONLY happen "if the extradition request is granted." THERE MUST BE an extradition request from the US for any 'temporary surrender' to happen. Now, what would the US request extradition for from Sweden? Riiiiiiight - the same thing they'd request extradition for from the UK, that is, "espionage." As you've correctly noted, the UK would almost certainly refuse that extradition request from the US, and Sweden would do the same thing because they specifically exempt "military and political crimes" as extraditable offenses in the original 1963 treaty (which the 1984 treaty, implementing 'temporary surrender', amends) - see Article V of the 1963 treaty between the US and Sweden.
And frankly, since you're so keen to suggest that all three parties are happy to disregard international law and do whatever they damn well please, then all the worry about "legal challenges" is moot, because if there really is such callous disregard for that law, then the US will simply fly in and kidnap him whenever and wherever they damn well please, regardless of any laws to the contrary. So why would they go through this incredibly convoluted conspiracy to get their hands on him in a manner that is completely illegal, when it's a lot easier to simply make him disappear? Remember - Sweden and the UK would have to be *willing conspirators in violating their own laws* to perform any sort of "sham extradition" - and they don't benefit from colluding in that way, at all. They would, in fact, be working to their own detriment.
Do you see why your little conspiracy theory holds no water yet? Either these countries are bound by the rule of law - in which case, their laws specifically PROHIBIT them from extraditing him to the US via "temporary surrender," or they refuse to be bound by any law that's inconvenient for him, in which case he will be kidnapped at gunpoint whenever it's convenient for the US to collect him, from wherever he happens to be sitting, and all these legal justifications are simple posturing to give him an excuse to dodge facing the charges that await him in Sweden.
What it boils down to is this, "fredprado" - my country may be corrupt to the bone as you sa
Yep, no true scotsman disagrees with you. We know. You haven't offered any "facts" - you've offered condescending name calling and senseless repetition of your own biased speculation as if they are facts.
Your assertion: "The UK couldn't have legally extradited him." Pure bullshit. The UK could easily extradite him, in exactly the same manner that Sweden could easily extradite him: the US simply has to file an extradition request in which they outline their case. This has to happen whether *the UK* or *Sweden* has him in custody.
Temporary surrender which you're so worried about may only be invoked *in the context of an extradition request.* Furthermore, it does not abrogate Sweden's obligation to seek the UK's approval to extradite him on to a third non-EU-member state, nor does it change the approval authority in the UK or Sweden one whit - the US must *first* request extradition; Sweden must then *agree* to the extradition request, *and also* seek the UK's approval - and that approval must be given by the *same* people in the UK who would approve or reject an extradition request filed directly by the US to the UK. Only once both Sweden and UK's approvals have been given, could he be extradited on to the US. And the US has not even filed charges - there is an "investigation," and every report citing official sources say that "an indictment is unlikely."
Now, even if they were to indict for espionage... that falls into the category of "political or military crime", which is, near-categorically, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK. It is also a capital crime, which is, again, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK.
Your argument that he is doing this out of some grave fear that the US will somehow extradite him away to languish in Guantanamo is bases SOLELY on speculation, and your assumption that THREE national governments would be SO eager to "destroy" Mr. Assange that they would ALL ignore their treaty obligations, international law, international relations, and their own citizens in order to get at him. Trust me - Mr. Assange is doing a bang-up job of destroying his credibility all on his own, all the US, Swedish, and Uk governments need to do if they want to "destroy" him... is wait and let him do it himself.
You can call me an idiot, and naive, and foolish all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you have offered NO FACTS to back up your assertions, and that your entire case is one big unfounded conspiracy theory. I really hope someday you'll mature enough to be able to separate political rhetoric from actual facts - it's a crucial skill that one acquires as one learns how the world works.
Actually, *everything* you have written is based on the true scotsman fallacy - you assume that ANYBODY who disagrees with you must be of limited intellect, and naive, because the "truths" you've divined - in spite of every fact pointed out to you by anybody with any knowledge of, you know, the actual law - are self-evident to 'anybody with a shred of intelligence.' This is amply evident in your blanket assertions of naivete, idiocy, ignorance, and stupidity in response to anybody who's dared to disagree with you, or point out facts that contradict your assertions.
When you keep asserting things without proof, we call that "taking it on faith." If you want to worship at the altar of Mr. Assange, feel free - but you'll have to excuse the rest of us for actually understanding the facts of the situation, and those of us who see that all of your articles of faith are predicated on the actual facts not existing, if we continue to doubt your blind assertions.
So what your post should have said was, "Why do some people who are just as obnoxious as Mr. Assange when you point a camera and a microphone at them say these sorts of things, even though their opinions matter very little and are in no way a statement of official policy, suggest these things?"
And the answer to that is, by being incendiary, they keep that camera trained on them for a few more seconds. Mr. Assange's behavior certainly suggests that he understands this principle at least as well as Gov's Huckabee and Palin.
Also, the charge against Assange would not be "treason," the charge would be "espionage" - there's a difference. You don't have to be an american citizen to be convicted of espionage, you do for treason. And the US has a fairly high burden of proof to show that he was anything but a passive recipient of the information, unless Mr. Assange is MUCH more stupid than any of us give him credit for, and he put something like, "LOL SO HOW MUCH DO I PAY YOU TO GET ME THE SEKRIT DATAZ FUR MEEE SO I CAN PUBLISH DEM?" in a chat log.
So Sweden deciding to deny asylum and repatriate two asylum-seekers from Egypt back to their home country is some sort of extradition process now? You realize these are two entirely separate processes, don't you?
No more open than the UK's.
So does Sweden.
You tell us - obviously you're the one with the inside line on what indictments and evidence the US must have against Assange to request his extradition from Sweden or the UK.
Not true at all - the chain of approval in the UK for continued extradition is *exactly* the same as if the US had asked the UK to extradite him directly - there is no loophole here allowing some third level bureaucrat to rubber-stamp an extradition order. If Sweden ignored this, they would be in violation of their obligations to the UK, and the EU at large, as an EU member state, and would thus be subject to fines, penalties, and possibly even criminal charges for the people involved. There would most certainly be repercussions for Sweden deciding to ignore its obligations as an EU member in order to do a favor for the US which does not benefit Sweden in ANY imaginable way.
Ah yes. No true scotsman doubts the veracity of the conspiracy to nab Assange. With ironclad logic like that, it's hard to believe you haven't convinced the world.
And if Sweden goes to the UK and asks, "Is it okay if we extradite Assange on to the US from here under the EAW you sent him to us under," you don't think that will cause just as much backlash, for both Sweden AND the UK?
This doesn't even buy the UK the *semblance* of plausible deniability, because the EAW framework explicitly states that Sweden MUST seek the approval of the UK before sending him on to ANY non-EU member state while he is in their custody under the auspices of the EAW. There is no way that the UK can claim "they never approved it," unless you REALLY think that Sweden has cheerfully agreed to take the fall for the US AND the UK, and that all of the fallout, penalties, and sanctions that will be levied against them will be taken with a smile that says, "We don't care about international law, our treaty obligations, or the opinions of the world, as long as we can make the US government happy while not benefitting ourselves in any way, that's ALL we really need."
Also, please note that I think Sweden:
1) receiving an extradition request from the US;
AND
2) agreeing that the extradition request is valid and worth seeking the UK's approval for;
Is incredibly unlikely to begin with. There is no evidence - zero, nada, zip, zilch - that the US has any evidence of wrongdoing on Assange's part, the only charge they could likely slap him with at all would be espionage (some extradition treaties *specifically* omit crimes such as this as extraditable offenses). Without evidence, specific charges, and a formal request (the collection & assembly of which would require the cooperation of dozens of people here in the US, as well as at least a handful in Sweden), there is no chance he will be extradited. I know you're going to bring up the "but what about rendition to Egypt," which just shows you're cherry-picking: that was a denial of a request for asylum and a repatriation after the denial - which, as you're no doubt aware NOW, since Mr. Assange is seeking asylum, is an entirely different process than extradition.
From the Swedish government's website (emphasis mine):
It's pretty clear that the US would have some very high hurdles to clear to even begin an extradition process - remember, this is legal terminology: "may not" is not "maybe yes, maybe no" - "may not" is "you are restricted from doin
Calling it a different name means nothing. Your argument that "temporary surrender isn't named extradition, so Sweden can do it," means less than nothing. Sweden is still bound by its obligations under the EAW to not surrender Mr. Assange unless it secures the consent of the UK. There is no special legal magic here, and the chain of consent is exactly the same as if the extradition request were submitted directly to the UK - it doesn't magically only require some third-level second assistant bureaucrat to stamp the right form if it's done through Sweden.
But please, go educate yourself. You could start here for a very thorough breakdown of the relevant laws, and even read the laws themselves, so you can understand exactly how foolish you sound:
http://gregcallus.tumblr.com/post/29939891330/assange-sweden-temporary-surrender-eaw
And do try to get past your outrage when the author calls the "temporary surrender" thing a canard - I know Mr. Assange is your personal hero - and we all know that somebody who published the "Collateral Murder" video would never create a false story with the intent of deliberately misleading people - but the laws are cited with relevant links, and are fairly simple to read. And they demonstrate quite clearly that this argument that somehow Sweden could "legally" send him on to the US is complete nonsense.
What a load of bullshit.
US: "UK we intend to charge Mr. Assange with espionage, here's some trumped up evidence. Please extradite him to us."
UK: "Right-o. Here you go, then."
The UK has never been particularly reluctant to extradite people to the US. Why is Assange so special?
Also, given that:
1) Sweden would REQUIRE UK approval to extradite him on to the US legally (generating a lot of confusion and bad publicity in the UK anyway)
2) Sweden choosing to extradite him to the US with or without Uk approval would ALSO generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity for Sweden;
your argument makes no sense. There is NO scenario where anybody benefits MORE by involving Sweden. Absolutely none. And before you start telling us all about Temporary Surrender, perhaps you can explain to us how Sweden having an extradition agreement with the US negates its other treaty obligations as an EU member under the EAW framework?
Again, a stupid, nonsensical question.
The "guiding principle" is that, when you commit espionage against ANY government, you can expect that government to want to get their hands on you. The only limiting factor is whether or not they can convince the country you're sitting in to take you into custody and hand you over.
Now as for espionage, "having" and "publishing" secrets is not espionage, you're right; "developing contacts in the military/intelligence community in order to get access to classified secrets" certainly crosses the line, and it would be up to the US to prove that Mr. Assange did that, if they wanted to make a case to extradite him to face espionage charges. I know it's fashionable here to blithely assert that "Assange didn't do that," but since you and I both have no real clue what evidence exists in the matter, the assertion is at best baseless speculation, and at worst, completely wrong. Assange claims he didn't do anything wrong, and I'm inclined to believe that he was a passive recipient, simply because he's smart enough to know better. Strangely, the US government, not contradicted his assertion - they are investigating the incident to see if there's evidence of wrongdoing, but there has been no allegations laid that have any legal basis. But again, since we don't know the facts of the case, we can't really conclude one way or another with any certainty.
Actually, no, it isn't. What's important is whether or not the US government can convince the government of "where he happens to be sitting" to extradite him.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting - it may make it easier to get away with, but it doesn't grant you some magical immunity.
What a stupid, nonsensical question. Why? Two reasons:
1) "possession of cannabis" is not a crime which victimizes the government. Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the *US* government, you cannot be so fucking thick that you don't see the difference between "I have a joint," and "I have (and just published) all of your classified military secrets."
2) ANY country has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil to the extent that the government with actual jurisdiction over that foreign soil allows them. There's this thing called extradition... I'm surprised you haven't run across it before now, what with all this excitement about Mr. Assange.
And by "answer your questions," I assume you meant, "Refuse to answer your questions by being as obtuse as possible?" Because if all you've got is fear-mongering bullshit from "justice4assange," well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, too.
SINCE WHEN does Sweden's treaty with the US trump it's treaty obligations as an EU member? If Sweden passed him along to the US, it would ABSOLUTELY, CLEARLY, and UNEQUIVOCALLY be violating its obligations to the UK and the EU as a member fo the EU. Which do you think is more important to Sweden - the goodwill and love of America, or the goodwill and love of the UK, and the rest of Europe?
Those links do nothing to explain why the UK - which happily extradites people to the US - is suddenly unable or unwilling to extradite him to the US, but will happily extradite him to Sweden, knowing full well - as part of this bizarre Illuminati conspiracy - that he's going to be shipped on to the US?
Ecuador has granted him diplomatic asylum, a practice that's been more or less unheard of outside of South America for 50+ years. The UK has not recognized Ecuador's right to grant this asylum, and under the existing treaties and laws, if the UK makes a formal request for Ecuador to hand him over, they pretty much have to, or face dissolution of their embassy and ejection of their embassy officials. The granting of "asylum" by Ecuador is an opportunistic photo op for them, and a self-serving bid to avoid prosecution (NOT persecution) by Mr. Assange.
If the "powers that be" were as riled up as you seem to think, there would be extradition requests from the US in to the UK government already. There are not.
Or, you wait for him to leave the embassy he was granted asylum in, and arrest him then, deport him to Sweden, and let him face the charges.
Or, you wait for Ecuador to be pressured into handing him over (my bet, personally), since the practice of granting diplomatic asylum has been pretty much dead outside of South America for the last 50 years, and under the treaties the UK and Ecuador have (since we're all such fans of abiding by the terms of treaties), Ecuador would pretty much HAVE to turn him over if a formal request were made from the UK for them to do so.
A stay of execution is not an unconditional pardon.
It is a procedural thing, and one which is required before any charges can be filed against the suspect.
So yes, they have to interview murder suspects before filing charges. Typically, this is done after they take the suspect into custody, where he remains until his trial. If *every* crime requires this interview (and it does), and we lend any credence to your assertion that "if you need to conduct an interview, it can't be that serious a crime," then by defintion no crime is serious, and Sweden would be a lawless wilderness ruled by brute force.
The interview is required before filing charges, period. Full stop.
Thanks for the link - it's nice to see some actual information to support the claims. But a key line in that story jumps out at me in the Google translation: "Serbia is not an EU member but said prosecutor Ewa Korpi still has hopes for a relatively quick decision: 'As far as we know the suspect agrees to extradition and that makes it a simpler system in the management,' she says."
So, how are the circumstances different?
1) UK & Sweden are both bound by the EAW framework, which MAY stipulate a different process than with Serbia, since Serbia is not a party to the EAW framework; Is there something in the Serbian treaty that allows for it that the EAW treaty may not allow?
2) Were the terms of the interview untenable? We haven't seen the actual offer made to Sweden, just that "an offer was made." It's possible that, again, Mr. Assange was trying to dictate terms, and the Swedish government was unwilling to agree with them.
3) Is this simply a pissing contest, where the prosecutors have decided they simply aren't going to be told how to conduct their investigation by the suspect, even if they COULD do it his way?
I think it's reasonable to ask the Swedish prosecutors to explain why they're unwilling to interview him in the UK at this point, certainly - there is precedent. But I'm unwilling to conclude that it "must" be some sort of conspiratorial collusion with the US driving it without more information.
I don't understand this argument - are you saying that the police shouldn't have the right to detain, interview, and ask questions of a suspect or other person-of-interest in a criminal matter?
The right against self incrimination is NOT immunity from arrest or detention, and does not provide you with any reasonable expectation that you will never be asked questions - it just gives you a way of saying "I choose not to answer that question, on grounds that it may incriminate me."
The right against self-incrimination is not specifically laid out in the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Sweden is a party), but Article 6 does lay out the minimum rights for a "fair trial," and the right against self-incrimination has typically been held to be a corollary of the protections offered there.
He has the right to refuse to answer questions, but he does not have the right for that refusal to mean "oh well, we'll drop the charges then!" He can refuse to answer questions, and make the prosecution show all the evidence required to confirm his guilt (or *fail to show* that evidence, resulting in dismissed charges or a not guilty verdict), but he can't refuse to show up for someone to ask him the questions as long as he's within the reach of Swedish jurisdiction - and he is, in the UK.
Yes, the EAW framework, which allows Sweden to file a request with the UK to take him into custody, and surrender him to the Swedish authorities. Which is precisely what they've done. They are not, and never have been, at the mercy of Mr. Assange's offer to have the prosecutors "come interview him at a place of his choosing."
I've heard the same thing, and been unable to find any supporting documentation - I'd be happy to see information about it, and I've asked in a couple other Wikileaks/Assange articles posted here, but never seen any response.
I've also asked for confirmation of the meme that seems to be going around that "his accusers aren't even cooperating with police anymore," but nothing aside from a speculative article initially posted by Crikey.com has supported that argument.
So, to all the supporters of Mr. Assange, any actual documentation supporting the following two arguments would be greatly appreciated - I've been unable to find it via Google, and I've yet to see any actual sources provided:
1) Some verifiable statement from one or both of Mr. Assange's Swedish accusers indicating that they are not cooperating with the prosecution in this matter, or a statement from the prosecution or police indicating the same.
2) Some verifiable confirmation that Sweden HAS conducted these sorts of pre-charge-filing interviews overseas before (such as in Serbia, mentioned above?), or that, at the very least, confirmation in the law that the interviews MUST be held in Sweden, or, MAY NOT be held elsewhere.