UK tells Ecuador Assange can't be extradited if he faces death penalty

[struggle4progress]

Source: The Guardian

William Hague says Wikileaks founder could only be sent to US if both Britain and Sweden believe human rights would not be breached
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 September 2012 08.19 EDT

Britain has assured Ecuador that Julian Assange has a double guarantee that he cannot face extradition from Sweden to the US if he were to face the death penalty or his human rights were to be breached ...

Hague told MPs the double guarantee meant Assange could only be extradited to the US from Sweden if both Britain and Sweden believed he would not face the death penalty and his human rights would not be breached.

The foreign secretary said: "Both the United Kingdom and Sweden are signatories to the European convention on human rights and the British government has complete confidence in the independence and fairness of the Swedish judicial system. As we have discussed with the government of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden robustly implement and adhere to the highest standards of human rights protection.

"The suggestion that Mr Assange's human rights would be put at risk by the possibility of onward extradition from Sweden to a third country is also without foundation. Not only would Sweden – as a signatory to the European convention on human rights – be required to refuse extradition in circumstances which would breach his human rights, but the authorities in Sweden would also be legally obliged to seek the United Kingdom's consent before any extradition to a non-EU member state could proceed ...


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/03/ecuador-julian-assange-extradited-death-penalty?newsfeed=true

[riderinthestorm]

1. Sweden's a US partner in illegal CIA rendition actions, the UK is guilty of war crimes

but somehow they're to be trusted??? Besides the president has claimed authority to execute people without due process, even to American citizens but especially with foreigners.

Is it getting harder to find Assange stories yet S4P? Just wondering since you seem to have some kind of quota and are starting to recycle old and tired threads?

[struggle4progress]

11. This story is current news for hundreds of papers today

It's not my fault if you refuse to see that

[joshcryer]

15. False, Sweden no longer renditions for the US.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Uh huh. If you say so I guess it must be true.

Ok then I'm completely convinced.

[joshcryer]

21. Uh, Wikileaks says it, actually.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military

An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

[riderinthestorm]

22. Obama's shown his disdain for international law.

6 years ago was a different world and Obama has demonstrated he's perfectly capable of extra legal actions. I don't trust him, the Swedes or the UK in any of this.

But hell if you trust the international players, fine. I've got this lovely bridge to sell you....

[joshcryer]

24. I trust Sweden, the UK, and Ecuador about the same.

If it's politically lucrative they will all do what the US wants. Yes, even Ecuador. If the US wants Assange he won't be safe anywhere. Maybe North Korea.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. I trust you're still voting for Obama

After all, what's a little fascism (as some describe it) so long as the trains run on time, right?

[harun]

44. LOL, you forgot the sarcasm tag

[treestar]

49. Why not?

Have they ever done anything wrong regarding ordinary extradition?

This one is another non-starter, just a dodge and an excuse.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

63. its one of the things that somewhat amuses me about some of Assange's defenders

they claim to want a promise not to 'extradite' him to the US but at the same time they keep saying that if he goes to Sweden he will be renditioned.

Considering that one of those are legal and the other obviously illegal...how does a promise not to do the legal thing stop the illegal one they claim will happen from happening :p

there is a slight discrepancy in that logic

[NewYorkers]

2. Hacking Act of war

The Pentagon’s newest policy grants the US military the ability to respond to a cyber attack on government networks with physical force – equating hacking to an act of war.

http://rt.com/usa/news/pentagon-war-cyber-attacks/

[AntiFascist]

3. Swedish law dictates...

that extradition not occur for political or military purposes. I don't understand why Sweden can't provide this assurance in addition to the assurance they are making of not extraditing if he is subject to the death penalty. It may also be possible that the US could prosecute as a non-political/non-military cyber crime, but if there is already a sealed indictment related to the Bradley Manning case no one would know until the indictment is unsealed.

[struggle4progress]

5. Why would anyone regard Russia Today as an authoritative source on US law and policy?

Russia Today is state-owned media: it reflects the foreign policy propaganda of its owner

[On the Road]

4. This Could Actually be a Way Out of this Morass

If Sweden agrees to no extradition, Assange could be extradited. It is likely he will be acquitted, especially since both his accusers are not supporting the prosecution.

If Sweden cannot agree, it might loosen the UK's position enough for him to be allowed to go to Ecuador.

At least one can hope.

[gmpierce]

10. Unh huh

As I recall, the United States used to send prisoners to countries that promised faithfully that they did not use torture. This satisfied US law for rendition, and the fact that the destination countries were lying thru their teeth was known to everyone before the fact.

But the letter of US law was satisfied.

[On the Road]

32. The Difference Here

is that this is a very public international matter being played out among the US, the UK, Sweden and Ecuador in the full view of the rest of the world.

[Selatius]

35. Sweden can extradite Assange to the US. Not for torture. But life in prison ... no parole.

The death penalty will be off the table for the obvious international outcry that would generate. However, the punishment of life in prison with no possibility of parole, in comparison, is far more humane and does not violate any European conventions on human rights. It would represent a compromise that both sides could abide by.

[sofa king]

6. Sweet Jesus I will never not wear a condom ever again!

[randome]

7. WTF???

[loli phabay]

8. its okay if you get permission first just no being sneaky about it

[joshcryer]

17. Heh. If consent is predicated on wearing a condom...

...I would hope you wear the condom and uphold the terms of consent.

[rootProbiscus]

9. Which is an admission that he will be extradited to the US if he goes to Sweden

And that the only reason for Sweden pursuing him so that he can be extraordinarily renditioned to the US of A.

[bemildred]

12. If they want to get their hands on Assange any time soon, they need to get affirmative:

"JULIAN ASSANGE WILL NOT BE EXTRADITED TO THE USA BY SWEDEN IF HE ALLOWS HIMSELF TO BE EXTRADITED TO SWEDEN."

Something like that. Leave out all the hypotheticals and make some actual promise that addresses his concerns. Then he would have no excuse.

[joshcryer]

19. I'm with you on this.

While I've gone over the legalese and think that such a promise isn't technically possible, just make the promise. Law is arbitrary anyway.

Hell, even if the promise isn't technically possible it just adds another wall of litigation that Assange can use if extradition to the US comes up.

[bemildred]

41. Prosecutors have authority which is quite arbitrary.

And they are accountable only with great difficulty, if at all, to only a few. The Swedes, in particular, could end this in a second an any of several ways.

[limpyhobbler]

34. This is right.

That they don't make a clear statement is what makes it seem like they are trying to get him to the Americans.

[hack89]

50. Obama should make such a promise right after the elections. nt

[bemildred]

51. I'm actually OK with them taking as long as they like.

The longer this witch hunt drags on, the more time the corruption of the secret state spends in the public eye.

[hack89]

53. I think the opposite - the American people in general don't care about Assange.

There is no need to raise such a contentious issue and give the Republicans a sharp stick to poke Obama with.

Obama does not want to bring Assange to America for trial - it is a no win situation. If convicted, you create a martyr - if acquitted you embellish his reputation. And I see acquittal much more likely than conviction - it is hard to see how he broke any US laws.

[bemildred]

54. No, you think the same for different reasons.

You're OK with him staying where he is too. My point is that I don't think either Assange or Ecuador are going to be in a hurry to resolve the issue. The pressure will come from the people that want to catch him.

The American people may not be paying much attention, but I can assure you also that plenty of people are, otherwise nobody would give a shit about Assange.

Julian does look like he's gaining a bit of weight.

[hack89]

56. I don't think the American government wants Assange

they would be much happier if he was in a Swedish cell.

I can't see how extraditing Assange and putting him on trial benefits America. If you assume that Wikileaks is just as much a philosophy as it is a person, then punishing Assange does nothing to stop Wikileaks - there will always be people capable of stepping into this shoes. If Wikileaks the philosophy / organization is deemed the real threat then perhaps ignoring Assange and doing something else in the shadows is the better course of action.

[bemildred]

60. Oh they want him, but maybe not for a show trial here.

I'm pretty sure a show trial anywhere else would be copacetic, just so he gets punished somehow.

[hack89]

61. They want him in a Swedish cell. nt

[bemildred]

62. OK, nothing but a swedish cell will do then.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. How can a non US citizen be tried for treason in the US?

[Ash_F]

16. "WikiLeaks could be vulnerable to Espionage Act"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025430-281.html

That and the country with the biggest military can do whatever it wants. Or at least it's leaders can.

[Ash_F]

38. That's the thing, who are you to tell the US government what they can do?

I am not saying it would be right(it's not) but the other poster asked if he could be tried for treason. Well, he doesn't need to be for the United States to put him in one of their prisons, or even kill him. And if they did, who would do what about it exactly?

The article sites court cases where non-nationals went to jail under the espionage act. It is very reasonable to assume the Justice Department would do the same to this man. The fact that they have been mum about it makes it even more obvious that they are at least considering it.

In the first cited case, the foreigner who was jailed was not even a spy, his cousin was. And he was not aware of his cousin's activities until after the fact. They sent him to prison for not turning in his cousin. That is the kind of justice you get in today's world.

[Ash_F]

46. For people who may have read the above post but did not read the article linked within...

“I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,” Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.”

Right in the article. That counters to the poster's entire argument. Those are not the words of someone who is not going to try everything then can to get this person. In the end the laws are vague. They can be bent by those in power. They have been bent by those in power per those court cases I cited. The only thing that matters now is whether the UK or Sweden have the political will to stand up to the US(They probably don't).

freshwest, I get that you are very loyal but come on.



PS - Before people jump down my throat for Obama hate. The president does not have omnipotent control over the executive. We don't know what Obama's position on Assange is as he has not spoken to it. The executive branch and the military tend to do what they want despite the president(all presidents). They have the legal authority to push back in various ways but they usually don't due to political ramifications. It is unfortunate but it is a national problem that precedes Obama.

[bemildred]

52. The law is not merely vague, it is inconsistent, it contradicts itself.

The same evidence can be construed to support all sorts of "facts", and the "facts" can then be construed according to different laws and different interpretations of those laws, to produce a variety of quite contradictory results, "you go to jail for 20 years, but you we decline to prosecute, and you we fine and extort "fees" from.

[struggle4progress]

29. A person, who owes the US no allegiance, cannot be tried for treason against the US

Moreover, treason occupies a peculiar place under US law, insofar as it is restricted by the constitution

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court ...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

[ljm2002]

48. Espionage, however, is a different issue...

...and we know they have tried to prove that Assange conspired with Manning to obtain the material that was released. Also there is the issue of terrorism. No less than our own vice president Joe Biden has stated that Assange may be a terrorist. And our current laws allow us to hunt down terrorists and kill them outright with no trial.

The authorities are doing all they can to reassure us all that Assange would get his day in court, both for the sexual case and for the matter of the U.S. classified materials. Unfortunately, after years of war and secret rendition and government-sanctioned assassinations of enemies of the state, all performed by the U.S. and in spite of our proclamations of justice -- these things have undermined people's faith in our government's sincerity in this matter.

You seem to buy the story that this is all about a possible sexual crime in Sweden. Many of us believe that this is a politically-motivated persecution. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly Assange is a flawed human being. I ask you: who the hell isn't? If I were to face charges such as those he faces in Sweden (unlikely as I am female, but just for the sake of argument), I would be idiotic to do what he is doing. However, Assange being the founder of WikiLeaks, and all of the attendant and very public hand-wringing that has gone on about the case, makes a very big difference. If I were in his shoes, I would be doing what he is doing, in spite of all the exhortations that he "face the music". Because even if he does not face the death penalty he does face years or the rest of his life in prison, if he ends up in the hands of the U.S.

Now some people may think that is a fine thing. I do not think that is a fine thing, and I certainly would not think it a fine thing if I were in Julian Assange's position. Therefore I cannot condemn him for doing everything in his power to stay out of the clutches of the U.S.

[SILVER__FOX52]

14. So.............There it is.........

Essentially, they admit that they will extradite him as long as, the US promises not to kill him. These people are simpletons. This is GD joke. Leave this man alone.

[backscatter712]

20. They said nothing about supermaxing him...

They want to do to Assange what they've been doing to Bradley Manning.

[hack89]

23. Do you think Bradley Manning is in a supermax?

just wondering what you meant.

[backscatter712]

27. Since you're being willfully obtuse, I was tempted to ignore you. But...

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)

On the slight chance you're merely ignorant and stupid instead of being a willful asshole, I'll point some things out to you.

During his incarceration, Manning was declared a "suicide risk" against the advice of two psychologists and put on a 24 hour suicide watch. He was confined to a cell 24 hours a day, forbidden from exercising, forcibly strip-searched, had even his glasses taken away from him except for maybe an hour or two a day where he was allowed to read or watch TV.

Manning was supermaxed. They used the excuse of a "suicide watch", but this procedure wasn't meant to treat or help someone who was mentally ill, it was meant to make someone mentally ill.

Linkage:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/21/wikileaks-bradley-manning-lawyer-unfairly

Lawyers condemn 'abuse' of suspected WikiLeaker Bradley Manning
American soldier's lawyers say holding him in maximum security and putting him on suicide watch breaches his rights

The lawyer for Bradley Manning, the army private suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, has filed a complaint that he is being unfairly treated at the marine base jail in Virginia.

David Coombs, Manning's lawyer, said that holding him in maximum custody over the last five months and placing him on suicide watch amounted to abuse. Coombs called for his removal from such tight monitoring.

The complaint was filed on Wednesday and on Thursday the marines downgraded his classification from suicide watch to prevention of injury. But Coombs argues that prevention of injury is not significantly different in practical terms and is seeking his removal from maximum security.

Coombs, writing on his office website, said that on Wednesday, against the recommendation of two forensic psychiatrists, the commander of the Quantico jail, James Averhart, listed Manning as a suicide risk, which meant he was confined to his cell 24 hours a day. "He was stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear. His prescription eyeglasses were taken away from him. He was forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that he was reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, his glasses were returned to him," Coombs wrote.

[Judi Lynn]

31. Unbelievably sadistic. Hideous, primitive behavior by the authorities. Financed by our taxes. n/t

[struggle4progress]

66. "... David Coombs, a lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, ... said Manning was confined in such a way

to prevent anything bad from happening to him ..."
Lawyers in WikiLeaks Case Argue Over Email Access
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
FORT MEADE, Md. August 28, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-soldiers-wikileaks-case-back-military-court-17093558

It seems likely that, if Coombs had evidence of "unbelievably sadistic, hideous, primitive behavior by the authorities" directed against his client Manning, he would make a great deal of that evidence: the fact, that he is not offering any such claim, is a rather good presumptive argument against there having been any "unbelievably sadistic, hideous, primitive behavior by the authorities" directed against Manning

The best Coombs can do here seems to be an argument that the authorities were much more motivated by a self-interested concern to "prevent anything bad from happening" to Manning, than by any altruistic concern for Manning's well-being

[hack89]

40. He was moved to a different prison 18 months ago

so I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

[dipsydoodle]

39. Which of course is the real issue.

Mention of the death penalty in this context is a red herring.

[struggle4progress]

57. Then, of course, perhaps EVERY ISSUE raised by Ecuador is a red herring. But you can't complain that

the UK attempts to address issues raised by Ecuador:

... Que la evidencia jurídica muestra claramente que, de darse una extradición a los Estados Unidos de América, el señor Assange no tendría un juicio justo, podría ser juzgado por tribunales especiales o militares, y no es inverosímil que se le aplique un trato cruel y degradante, y se le condene a cadena perpetua o a la pena capital, con lo cual no serían respetados sus derechos humanos ...

TEXTO COMPLETO: Declaración del gobierno de Ecuador dando asilo a Assange
http://www.lr21.com.uy/mundo/1054252-texto-completo-declaracion-del-gobierno-de-ecuador-dando-asilo-a-assange
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11084744

[JDPriestly]

25. Let Ecuador make its own decision. It is a sovereign nation.

[struggle4progress]

26. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), Article 41:

... 1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State ...

3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State ...

The most proper location, for Ecuador's exercise of its sovereignty, is Ecuadorian territory, whereas the territory of the UK is a very doubtful location for Ecuador's exercise of its sovereignty. Neither Ecuador's sovereignty in Ecuadorian territory, nor the privileges and immunities extended to its diplomatic staff in London, confer any right under international law for Ecuador to use its embassy to harbor fugitives from the law, to obstruct the legitimate acts of UK courts, or to interfere with the UK's efforts to meet its international treaty obligations with other European nations

[JDPriestly]

36. And I mention again: Cardinal Mindzsenty -- 15 years in the US embassy in Budapest.

Is Assange really all that important?

I can't understand the fanaticism about getting him at all cost.

The effort really isn't' worth it. I doubt that he has much to do with Wikileaks nowadays. It's beyond me. He is not an American citizen. He signed no confidentiality agreements. Other journalists have published American secrets (and propaganda which was also published through Wikileaks). The witch hunt is just absurd. You win some and lose some and you learn.

And I hope the US diplomatic corps will learn to be a little more discreet in its communications and its choices as to with whom to share them. The Assange matter has been blown way out of proportion to its effects.

[struggle4progress]

37. Why would you think a diplomatic standoff between Hungary and the US

some forty or fifty years ago has any significance for a diplomatic standoff between Ecuador and the UK today?

"The effort really isn't worth it" -- you say. But it may indeed well "be worth it" to the UK not to encourage foreign embassies in London to take the view that they are allowed to harbor fugitives from the police: otherwise, there may be a tedious epidemic of copycat escapes to London embassies. And it may also "be worth it" to Sweden not to allow folk to flee to London to escape arrest in Sweden: otherwise, there may be a tedious epidemic of copycat escapes to London. And (come to think of it), the UK might prefer not to fill up with folk who have decided to come ogle Big Ben, just to avoid an extensive encounter with the Swedish law

IIRC, the Swedish allegations don't mention Wikileaks nowadays, nor do the allegations turn on his citizenship, nor do the allegations involve whether or not he signed any confidentiality agreements

[JDPriestly]

47. Watch Casablanca.

Think of Wollenberg -- a diplomat who saved Jews from the NAZIS in WWII Hungary. And these are just examples of the many, many people in WWII who defied the law to protect the victims of a brutal government.

It's worth reading the entire article:

When Wallenberg reached the Swedish legation in Budapest in July 1944, the campaign against the Jews of Hungary had already been underway for several months. Between May and July 1944, Eichmann and his associates had successfully deported over 400,000 Jews by freight train. Of those deported all but 15,000 were sent directly to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in southern Poland.[17] By the time of Wallenberg's arrival there were only 230,000 Jews remaining in Hungary. Together with fellow Swedish diplomat Per Anger,[23] he issued "protective passports" (German: Schutz-Pass), which identified the bearers as Swedish subjects awaiting repatriation and thus prevented their deportation. Although not legal, these documents looked official and were generally accepted by German and Hungarian authorities, who sometimes were also bribed.[16] The Swedish legation in Budapest also succeeded in negotiating with the German authorities so that the bearers of the protective passes would be treated as Swedish citizens and be exempt from having to wear the yellow badge required for Jews.[14]

With the money raised by the board, Wallenberg rented 32 buildings in Budapest and declared them to be extraterritorial, protected by diplomatic immunity. He put up signs such as "The Swedish Library" and "The Swedish Research Institute" on their doors and hung oversize Swedish flags on the front of the buildings to bolster the deception. The buildings eventually housed almost 10,000 people.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg

Protecting those who are try to escape overreaching governments who want to keep their war crimes a secrets is, in the eyes of history, a noble action.

Assange's transgressions in Sweden, assuming the accusations are real, are just are not all that important. The tradition of protecting those who may be escaping from political persecution is of great importance.

We may disagree as to whether what Assange did was a common crime, an attention-getting scheme, an exercise of the First Amendment, way before its time, or a noble act (and personally I don't know or care which of those it was), but the extremes to which governments are going to "catch" Assange at something, anything naughty that will destroy his reputation and silence him make me very suspicious. That kind of an international effort by some of the very countries that started what I now view as the illegal war in Iraq is not consistent with the ideals and purposes of our country. It wreaks of the kinds of conduct we saw under Hitler and Stalin to name just two.

Assange may or may not have taken advantage of the women accusing him, but I personally, knowing what I do of history, do not doubt that some of the same people in Washington, D.C. who want to protect their own lies and crimes and keep them out of the news are behind the extravagant efforts to extradite him. I hope that Assange will be allowed asylum in Ecuador and permitted to live in peace there.

[struggle4progress]

59. You should be ashamed of making any comparison to Wallenberg: the Nazi mass-murder

of Hungarians represents perhaps a tenth of the Shoah, and Wallenberg saved thousands and thousands of lives

[U4ikLefty]

65. You should be ashamed by the fake outrage.

[riderinthestorm]

28. S4p is itching for the UK to yank Ecuador's sovereignty

Isn't that lovely? The global diplomatic world turned on its head - s4p will happily trot it out as justification to get that baddie Assange!

[struggle4progress]

30. You don't even make sense: the UK can't "yank Ecuador's sovereignty"

"Ecuador's sovereignty" is essentially the right of Ecuador to govern its territory

[no_hypocrisy]

42. This is how it would likely play out:

1. U.S. assures Sweden and Britain that Assange will not face the death penalty if he is extradited from Sweden to the U.S. and goes to trial for leaking classified material.

2. Sweden gets Assange. He's either indicted or released. If indicted, he goes to trial. He's either convicted or acquitted. His custody is then transferred to the U.S.

3. Assange arrives in the U.S. He's either indicted or released. Of course he'll be indicted. He goes to trial and he essentially gets the same judge and jury as Don Siegelman (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml)

4. Death penalty or life at Guantanamo

[Festivito]

45. Ding! Ding! Ding!

But, they'll say, we didn't know he'd get that-there death penalty at the time we allowed his extradition.

[treestar]

58. No one is being sent to Gitmo

That is just absurd.

No one here wants to "get" that drama monarch.

[KoKo]

64. That's the possibility and why Assange is fighting back...

Why there are these DU'ers who swarm onto every Assange post to try to discredit him...worries me. Why is that that they have such an interest in this that they seem to have some way to devise a system alert that a bell/buzzer goes off when a post about Assange appears on DU.

It's fascinating to watch it....although sad to see it here on a Democratic site.