Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If the US wants Julian Assange, why not extradite him directly from the UK? [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)34. Until an indictment is unsealed, there are no grounds to extradite him to the U.S.
You can't extradite someone just on suspicion or for questioning. Extradition requires that the person is wanted either because they have been charged with a crime in the requesting country, or because they have been convicted and fled prior to serving their sentence. The rule as its applied in the US is as follows: http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5080
In order for the United States to prosecute a defendant, a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person. Therefore, before the U.S. requests extradition from another country, the appropriate authorities must determine whether the conduct was committed within the territory of the U.S., or whether the conduct, even though committed outside of U.S. borders, produced detrimental effects within the United States. After subject matter jurisdiction has been established, the prosecutors try to establish personal jurisdiction over the suspect by successful extradition back to a U.S. court[12].
Currently, a foreign government seeking the defendant's extradition submits a formal request, accompanied by documentation such as copies of the pertinent foreign statutes, and either a certificate of conviction or evidence to support a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime for which he is sought. The formal proceeding before an extradition magistrate is initiated by filing a complaint under oath[13]. The magistrate then conducts a hearing to determine: (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of one or more of the criminal laws of the requesting country; (2) that the alleged conduct, if committed in the United States, would have been a violation of our criminal law; and (3) that the extradited individual is the one sought by the foreign nation[14]. The United States Supreme Court validated the simplicity of this proceeding in Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913), holding that the only issue in an extradition proceeding is whether a prima facie showing of guilt is established.
Currently, a foreign government seeking the defendant's extradition submits a formal request, accompanied by documentation such as copies of the pertinent foreign statutes, and either a certificate of conviction or evidence to support a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime for which he is sought. The formal proceeding before an extradition magistrate is initiated by filing a complaint under oath[13]. The magistrate then conducts a hearing to determine: (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of one or more of the criminal laws of the requesting country; (2) that the alleged conduct, if committed in the United States, would have been a violation of our criminal law; and (3) that the extradited individual is the one sought by the foreign nation[14]. The United States Supreme Court validated the simplicity of this proceeding in Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913), holding that the only issue in an extradition proceeding is whether a prima facie showing of guilt is established.
I think people weren't initially responding because you may be trying to make a point rather than seeking an answer to a sincere question.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
51 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If the US wants Julian Assange, why not extradite him directly from the UK? [View all]
Nye Bevan
May 2013
OP
Assange has not been in UK custody. That's thje same as US>--He's in Ecuador embassy
librechik
May 2013
#2
He was arrested in the UK in 2010, but did not hole up in the Ecuadorian embassy until June 2012.
Nye Bevan
May 2013
#4
"Mr Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT. "
Nye Bevan
May 2013
#20
He was in UK custody for 2 years before he bolted to the Ecuadoran embassy...nt
SidDithers
May 2013
#5
According to this link, the US does *not* need to supply prima facie evidence
Nye Bevan
May 2013
#10
You need to read clauses in context: the UK requires a warrant or conviction to extradite.
leveymg
May 2013
#37
UK has charges on him now--he violated his bail and disregarded the directives of the court.
MADem
May 2013
#46
They've got "custody." They just don't have to make him dinner or call the doctor if he's sick.
MADem
May 2013
#49
So, what? The Austrialian and UK press reports that there will be. The U.S. press reports that
Luminous Animal
May 2013
#25
Sorry. I can't trust the latest U.S. government anonymous sources to deliver the truth.
Luminous Animal
May 2013
#29
Until an indictment is unsealed, there are no grounds to extradite him to the U.S.
leveymg
May 2013
#34
"... Sweden (as the UK) is party to the European Convention of Human Rights. The convention has been
struggle4progress
May 2013
#41