Skip to main content

View Diary: Ecuadorian Embassies and Endgames: Is the Assange Asylum Approaching An End? (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Swedish authorities have said no such thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209

    And I'd know, as I've been watching this case very closely.  What Sweden has refused to do is break their own laws by preemptively refusing a nonexistent request from the US.  Swedish extradition law is quite explicit in that the Judiciary takes up the case before the government.  The government doesn't even get to issue a nonbinding opinion until the judiciary takes up the case, and can't make a binding decision until the judiciary rules (and only if they don't rule in the defendant's favor).  To usurp the judiciary and make declarations without the judiciary even getting to take up the (nonexistant) request would not only violate the extradition act, but the Swedish constitution.  And that ignores the potentially treaty violations that would occur from preemptively declaring any request dead on arrival regardless of its content.  

    All of that said, Sweden has among the most restrictive extradition treaties with the US in the first world, and the world's best whistleblower protections.  Which is why Assange was there in the first place and repeatedly called Sweden his "shield".  It's illegal to extradite from Sweden for intelligence or military charges - flat out banned.  It's never happened, and Sweden is home to hundreds of US defectors.  Most notably, Sweden harbored Edward Lee Howard, the CIA defector who basically unravelled the US's whole spy op in the USSR.  Think the US didn't really want him?  Couldn't even touch him.  Oh, and the same foreign minister Assange rails against, Carl Bildt?  He was prime minister then.

    AND, because of the EAW, it wouldn't just be Sweden who would get to refuse.  It would also be the UK.  The country Assange personally chose to fight out his battle against surrender to Sweden from.  He had no qualms about spending a year out in the open in the UK even while insinuating that Evil Sweden was involved in a conspiracy to send him to the US.  Both the UK government and courts, as the originating state under the EAW, have the right to block any further extradition, as though it originated from their territory.  And indeed, Assange had reason to trust the UK.  This is, after all, the country which refused to hand over the most successful hacker of US military systems in history, because "he has aspergers" (as if Assange doesn't?).  Think the US didn't really want McKinnon?  Couldn't touch him.  

    But oh no, it doesn't stop there.  Because the European Court of Human Rights can intervene at every step of the way, and they absolutely will.  Critics of the ECHR rail against it as the world's greatest refuge for criminals fleeing extradition, and for coddling legitimate offenders in general.  This is the court, after all, that ruled that Britain can't ban felons still in prison from voting or deny sex offenders in prison government-funded assisted reproductive services.

    So basically, the conspiracy is that both the courts and government of Assange's personally-chosen country who wouldn't even hand over Edward Lee Howard is going to team up with the courts and government of Assange's other personally-chosen country who wouldn't even hand over Gary McKinnon, and the world's greatest refuge for people fleeing extradition, to extradite to the US where Assange will be executed or locked up in some dark hole never to see the light of day, despite the fact that even the source who clearly and explicitly violated the laws in question will only be serving seven years, and despite the fact that even extraditing where supermax prison is a possibility (let alone worse things) is classified as torture in each of the five entities above, and in two of them, flat out extraditing for intelligence charges is altogether illegal - all to extradite a person for something who even most of his critics of his run from rape charges would oppose.  

    I'm sorry, but that's so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their kids.

    Já þýðir já. Nei þýðir nei. Hvað er svona erfitt við það?

    by Rei on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:26:26 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So who would enforce that law and what are (0+ / 0-)

      the penalties for violating it.  You do know there is a difference between extradition which would have to go before a court and rendition where the Swedish government just sticks him on a plane to the US, right?  As for the ECHR, what power do they have to enforce their decisions?  That's right, they have no real power to do jack shit.  The only reason the ECHR has any power whatsoever is that nobody has simply told them to go to hell yet.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:50:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site