Diplomatic assurances can’t be binding in these cases anyway for the UK, because the courts can overrule them. (And I believe the same is true in Sweden)
Just curious about something, as I’m not a lawyer:
Suppose a member of another nation’s intelligence service is part of a network that spies on the U.S., which I’m sure happens all the time. If this person is on foreign soil, is there any legal recourse for the U.S. to ask for extradition to have that person stand trial for espionage? No crime was committed on U.S. soil, so I’m not sure why our jurisdiction would take precedent in such a case - any legal minds are welcome to comment on my ignorance, as I willfully admit it on this particular subject.
Mind you, of course it wouldn’t happen as no country is going to turn over their own intelligence agency to the country that they’re spying on, but this is instead a question on whether we could really even ask for extradition in the first place.
edit - and doesn’t treason require the individual to be a citizen of the country in the first place?
Why do so many people think the US would suddenly try to extradite Assange? He’s been in the UK and other friendly countries on numerous occasions since Wikileaks became a big story and we’ve never filed charges or asked anyone to arrest him. He’s been in the UK for months and again, nothing. The US is far more interested in going after the people that leaked the information to Assange and Wikileaks.
Not to mention that arrresting him or otherwise is a no-win situation. Its not like it would kill Wikileaks anyway. They may be doing things to damage Wikileaks or make Assange look bad, but this idea that the US wants to haul him off to Cuba or some secret military tribunal is frankly paranoia.
The news I heard this morning said that England stated Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy. Nothing about them going in to get him. I would think that could never happen.
Basically, the UK’s in a rock and a hard place.
The Extradition act requires them to take all legal measures to ensure someone’s extradited. As an unintended side effect of a change in the law after a police officer was shot from inside an Embassy years ago, the UK has a law allowing them to revoke an embassy’s credentials if their actions are incompatible with diplomatic status (but NOT affecting anyone with accepted diplomatic credentials, see).
Sweden could force the UK to apply that…
Fifteen years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, after Bush II and Obama…well, call me paranoid.
That was from the Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patino in the news conference in which he gave the reasons why, and the legal reasons behind ecuador giving Assange assylm.
They offered for the swedish prosecutors to come to the embassy to present their case in detail (and sweden had done this scenario before, but refused point blank here), they sought assurances from the usa, sweden and britain that assange could safely go to trail in sweden and not get taken to america, and no assurance was given for this.
It sounds like they tried everything to allow the accusations over these alledged rapes to be undertaken AND protect the human rights of Assange in that process. But as that is not the issue (the rape case) these attempts resulted in failure. The usa wants to render Assange to one of their facilities and has put extreme pressure on the uk and sweden to set that up. Otherwise this situation wouldn’t have arisen in this manner where by the uk government have basicaly said they are willing to revocate Ecuadors diplomatic immunity to get Assange. This is not about a spurious rape claim, not at this level, no way.
infact i’m so dissgusted by my countries lack of human rights understanding on this i’m going to go down to the ecuadorian embassy to add my voice to those that worry about this whole saga, and what it really means in terms of freedom of speech and the our human rights etc.
@ Sarkus, because it’s called playing the long game. It could happen in 2 months or two years, while in the uk they were allowing time to dilute public interest and time so people like yourself can just say ‘well they would have got him already’. They want him bad, and have done since wikileaks hit the limelight with the reveal on the sanctioned torture and targetting of civillians by the usa and allied armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Millions of deaths later in those countries and that evil power wants their man. It really is that simple.
Who would have thought in 2008 that someone could seriously write that sentence? :)
@Dan theman
We need a fictional country for that example. Lets go with Narnia, which is now in the public domain. So, Narnia has a spy agency which spies on the United States using Wardrobe technology. The US wants to extradite Maugrim for heading this agency, would they be able to do so?
I would have to think not under any ordinary circumstances. Any spies caught on US soil can be arrested and either charged, deported, or used in a prisoner exchange. Really, the only way the US has to get any country to give up any prisoner what so ever is through mutual treaties. The US has tried to get Polanski back in the US for over 20 years to face charges for child rape, but that feudal kingdom posing as a nation France can’t seem to legally get it done and so the man goes free.
Again, in the UK and I believe Sweden, this CANNOT be granted by the executive, since it’s a matter for the courts.
This is not about a spurious rape claim, not at this level, no way.
And that’s rising to the level of victim blaming.
Wikileaks was set up in part to stop abuse of the law. Well, here’s Assange now using any possible trick to dodge the law. It pisses on any concept of civil disobedience which he could have claimed, the man’s an egomaniac who’s managed to eclipse Wikileak’s work.
Not me, which is one of the main reasons I voted for him during the last election cycle. I won’t do so this time.
And if you want to know who leaked to Assange, who would be the best person to interrogate?
This was the earlier statement in full by ecuador on this issue:
This was the statement from our Foreign Secutary just a few minutes ago:
Compare the two and ask yourself would you think he would face a trial in sweden without getting rendered to the usa after? The use of language in those two statements says it all to me.
magnet - Several of the wikileaks technical staff, who live in various EU countries and have not been threatened in any way. He’s the spokesperson, not the only person involved, ffs! He’s made it all about him :/
edit: Fuck me, a Coalition cabinet minster opened his pie hole for more than two seconds without me disagreeing with him. This is an EVENT!
If you’ve reached the point where you are convinced that the legal systems in the UK, US, and Sweden are at the whim of US national security forces then you need to stop posting on an internet gaming site and get out in the streets to organize the necessary protests for a revolution.
Needs more crazy.
This sets a dangerous precedent if the Brits do this. The next time some Chinese human rights activist flees to the US embassy, China will barge in and seize him.
If they do this. They made the threat but the FM statement I read on BBC.com makes it sound like they are in no hurry to act.
Even though I don’t buy the conspiracy theory argument Assange is making, I don’t want to see the embassy violated, frustrating though it may be to see people evading justice by it.
Why can’t they just play Daleks on a high pitch to get him out Manuel Noriega style?
Or worse- subject him to Elton John music.
Why dont they just use good old fashioned psychological warfare on them? I thought a few years ago the US bombarded an embassy with horrible loud music.