If the US wants Julian Assange, why not extradite him directly from the UK?

[Nye Bevan]

Surely the UK is closer ally of the US and would be more likely to agree to the extradition? I would understand the arguments much better if Assange was attempting to avoid being extradited to the UK.

I tried to Google this but all I could find were statements that it would be harder, if anything, to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK (for one thing, apparently both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to the extradition in this case).

Are there any even semi-plausible theories for this?

[Nye Bevan]

1. Nothing? Anyone? (nt)

[librechik]

2. Assange has not been in UK custody. That's thje same as US>--He's in Ecuador embassy

for more than a year now--no extraditions.

[Nye Bevan]

4. He was arrested in the UK in 2010, but did not hole up in the Ecuadorian embassy until June 2012.

So there was plenty of time for the US to extradite him from the UK, if they had wanted to.

[Phillip McCleod]

16. he was not charged.. he was detained.

he hasn't been charged with any crime in the UK. in fact, he hasn't been charged with any crime in *sweden*.

he's wanted for *questioning*.

[Nye Bevan]

20. "Mr Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT. "

The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been refused bail by a court in London but vowed to fight extradition to Sweden.

Mr Assange denies sexually assaulting two women in Sweden. He was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of the 39-year-old fleeing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

[Phillip McCleod]

21. 'A person who has not been charged can be arrested.'

..that's the difference between being in *custody under charge* and being *detained pending hearings*.

[Phillip McCleod]

24. there ya go.. i corrected the typo/brain fart..

..'charged' was the legal term i was reaching for, not 'arrested'.

[MADem]

32. Because they don't want him. That's why.

And even if they DID want him, why should they pay to jail him, to house him, to feed him, to provide him with legal advice, medical care, etc?

It's so much easier to let him play the "Waaah, I am a victim" card, and let the Ecuadorans (they can rattle a sabre at us all they want, we're their biggest trading partner and their unit of currency is the United States dollar...ain't that interesting) play de-facto jailers for us!

He's confined to a cell, his activities are monitored, and he can't leave! I wonder which diplomat had to give up his office for the little shit?

The truth, though, is Assange simply doesn't want to face justice in Sweden, so he's pointing at everyone--the British, the Americans--in an effort to distract from the simple fact that he's a creepy guy who forces himself on women. That's the real bottom line here, and people who point at the women and call them names for getting annoyed at this guy for forcing himself on them and correctly reporting his antisocial behavior have an interesting perspective with regard to rights of women and issues of asault.

Assange's problems are principally in Sweden. He's "doing time" for his Swedish crimes across the street from Harrod's--thing is, he won't get credit for time served. Hiding isn't going to make it go away, either. At some point in time, he'll have to face the music, or the Ecuadorans will get sick of him and kick him out...!

[SidDithers]

5. He was in UK custody for 2 years before he bolted to the Ecuadoran embassy...nt

Sid

[Phillip McCleod]

15. no he was under house arrest to keep him from fleeing..

..thanks to political considerations. period.

he's not even being *charged* with any crime in *Sweden*.. let alone the UK.

[SidDithers]

23. You need to read to facts of the case...

Here's the UK's Finding of facts and reasons
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

Sweden issued an European arrest warrant on Assange. The UK ruled it was a legal arrest warrant and took Assange into custody. Assange was granted bail while he appealed extradition. While out on bail, Assange lived under house arrest, with an ankle bracelet, for 2 years.

If the US wanted Assange, they could have sought extradition at any time during those 2 years. But no, Assange conspiracists think that the US wants to get him from Sweden.

After 2 years of losing appeals at every level of the UK court system, time ran out for Assange. As soon as his final appeal on extradition was exhausted, he fled jurisdiction and ran to the Ecuadoran embassy.

Sid

[Phillip McCleod]

26. why would the UK do that? they're not *charging* him with *anything*

they have no incentive to treat him as a criminal and bow to the u.s. in his case. in fact, for once they have some real leverage.

[SidDithers]

30. The UK isn't going to charge him with anything...

as far as I know, Assange hasn't committed any crimes in the UK.

The UK was honouring the European Arrest Warrant that Sweden issued on Assange, so. That's what nations with extradition agreements do. If Sweden issues a warrant for Assange's arrest, and Assange is living in London, then the UK police arrest him. So they took him into custody and prepared to ship him off to Sweden. At that point, Assange used the UK court system to fight extradition, and he lost at every level.

If the US had requested extradition, that request would have been treated the same as the request from Sweden. Assange would have been taken into custody, and then he again would have access to the UK court system to fight the extradition.

I don't know what happens if two nations are both requesting extradition of the same individual. I would guess that somewhere there are protocols in place that take into consideration the alleged crimes in each nation, or the potential sentence.

Edit: the incentive for the UK to cooperate with an extradition request from the US, is that there would be an expectation that the US would assist with any UK extradition request, if the UK were seeking a criminal who had fled to the US.

Sid

[Phillip McCleod]

35. the u.s. hasn't asked for extradition.. yet.

but if the u.s. and some other country both asked for extradition, guess who'd win?

right now, that's not where assange is at. right now he's in limbo for a couple of reasons..

1) sweden hasn't really got it's act together on why it wants to question him. they've gone through multiple prosecutors, with *varying* degrees of dedication to the *eventual* pursuit of charges, but for now, they just want to talk to him about what it would be like to be charged. WTF?!?!? when sweden decides to actually charge him with a *crime*, then i'll take that politic seriously.

2) the UK has politics. ever watched Parliament on the TeeVee? they have a right wing and a left wing. the u.s. has a right wing and a left wing. these rights and lefts sometimes align, but they are an ocean apart. the right wing the u.s. wants to charge assange with terrorism, *O-fucking-K*?!? they want to put him in a hole and torture him. *O-fucking-K*?!?

question.. do you want that to happen to julian assange?

this is the right-wing agenda.

can you sense the geopolitics yet?

[SidDithers]

36. Assange isn't in limbo...

his legal status is very clear.

He's a fugitive who skipped bail and is on the run from a valid European Arrest Warrant. That's why he'd be arrested the moment he steps foot outside of his hidey-hole in the Ecuadoran embassy. That's why he's not being granted safe passage to the airport, so he can jet off to sip umbrella drinks on Ecuador's sunny beaches.

Sid

[struggle4progress]

40. No: he may face prison and fines for jumping bail

[ucrdem]

3. Don't try to understand with your mind grasshopper.

Look to the water at your feet. Does not the sage say: "What is more yielding than water? Yet, back it comes again, wearing down the ridged strength, which cannot stand to its strength. What is more forceful than quite water?"

It is a mystery. But it is true.

[randome]

9. Julian? Is that you?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

14. Yes. No.

The wild boar runs from the tiger. Knowing that each being well armed by nature with deadly strength, may kill the other. Running, he saves his own life, and that of the tiger. This is not cowardice. It is the love of life. It is obvious.

This post.

case.

in.

point.

[Phillip McCleod]

17. i'm flattered.

but many words do not a cogent argument make..

..

grasshopper.

[randome]

28. Some grasshoppers are more equal than others!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Phillip McCleod]

31. well that's kinda weird.. but ok..

..i'll try not to read too much into it.

[randome]

45. Yeah, not really sure what I was aiming for, there.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Xithras]

7. Rights.

Under UK law, a person has the right to fight an extradition and the extraditing country is required to lay out all of their evidence and prove that there's a substantial possibility that they actually committed a crime. That would require the US government to make a vast amount of intelligence data public in the UK, which they don't want to do.

Sweden, on the other hand, has a well documented history of working as a partner on our "extraordinary renditions", and we have a bilateral extradition treaty with them that is far less onerous than the treaty we have with the U.K. Under the terms of our treaty with Sweden, Assange wouldn't have the same right to protest the extradition as he has in the U.K. And even if his rights WERE upheld and they declined to rendition him AND provided him with a chance to fight the extradition, Swedish courts permit any evidentiary hearings to occur behind closed doors and out of sight of the media. Of course, that's unlikely, as Sweden hasn't actually opposed a U.S. extradition request in 13 years. We ask, they provide.

The extradition treaty between Sweden and the UK is a complicating factor, but that doesn't change the fact that Sweden is a more favorable place for us to pursue him.

[Nye Bevan]

10. According to this link, the US does *not* need to supply prima facie evidence

in support of an extradition request to the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review

Supporting evidence: exempted countries

The following countries don’t need to provide prima facie evidence in support of their extradition request:

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Macedonia FYR, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the US

What source were you using for your claim?

[leveymg]

37. You need to read clauses in context: the UK requires a warrant or conviction to extradite.

That much is basic law, shared in common with the US and most other countries. What you're reading is a Section that makes it possible for the British authorities to arrest a wanted person from certain countries without having a certified copy of the indictment in hand. Under no circumstances could the UK actually deport someone to the US they had cause to believe had not been indicted or convicted.

Extradition requests: what’s required

When an extradition request is made to the Secretary of State if it’s ‘valid’, the Secretary of State will issue a certificate and send the request to the court.

The request will be valid if it is for a person accused or convicted of an offence, and if it’s made by an appropriate authority, such as a diplomatic or consular representative.
Documents needed to make a request

Generally the information accompanying a request needs to include:

details of the person
details of the offence of which they are accused or convicted
if the person is accused of an offence - a warrant for their arrest or provisional arrest (or a duly authenticated copy)
if someone is unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence – a certificate of the conviction and sentence (or a duly authenticated copy), or for provisional arrest, details of the conviction
evidence or information that justifies the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing

If the court is satisfied that enough information has been supplied, an arrest warrant can be issued.

[Phillip McCleod]

19. exactly the obvious point. the UK won't play bad cop.

they know too well that there exists a very real contingent of Newt Gingriches in the u.s. who want to treat assange as an enemy combatant, and they're not willing to play that game.

frankly, i doubt sweden is either, and this hasn't been tested yet. assange found amnesty and took it, and so far wikileaks has been effectively extinguished as a perceived threat to national security. for now the u.s. has nothing to worry about from julian assange and wikileaks, because even progressives have chosen to perceive him as now irrelevant.

[Phillip McCleod]

8. sure.. 2 reasons..

the UK has no charges against him, and the UK does not want to look like the bad guy by drumming some up.

once in Sweden, assange would be in *custody on charges* which is a far sight different from house arrest pending various extravagant extradition hearings.

if you can't see the politics involved in this.. i don't know what to say. the word 'naive' springs to mind, butt hay.

..

edit.. btw, sorry i was around *right* after you posted this to satisfy your need for an instant internet reply.

[Nye Bevan]

11. He would not be extradited to the US for the rape charges.

So whether or not he is in custody for the rape charges would obviously not be relevant in an extradition hearing for a completely different alleged crime.

[Phillip McCleod]

13. just figured that one out? incisive.

if it's not obvious.

why would they bother right now? they have him where they want him? defused. even so-called progressives in the states disparage him.

..

this thread..

case.

in.

point.

..

edit.. if you'd read the link, you'd know the u.s. has no intention of extraditing him on rape charges.

[MADem]

46. UK has charges on him now--he violated his bail and disregarded the directives of the court.

He ran from the law to the embassy. He had to forfeit a huge bail, too--that he borrowed from friends who are no longer his friends, as they've lost the money they loaned him...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail

[Phillip McCleod]

47. haha.. yeh *now* they have charges..

.. but no custody.

Peanut butter but no jam.

[MADem]

49. They've got "custody." They just don't have to make him dinner or call the doctor if he's sick.

He ain't going anywhere.

[Phillip McCleod]

50. that fits my earlier point to a tee.

that the u.s. doesn't *need* to extradite assange.. from the u.k. or sweden.

he's been effectively marginalized. even most of his once-supporters on the left merely snarl at the mention of his name.

this thread..
case.
in.
point.

[MADem]

51. They wouldn't have charges on him if he answered the charges in Sweden.

Odds are, he'd be done by now even if he was found guilty. Instead, he's living in a back bedroom in Knightsbridge. You can get wonderful--if expensive-- food in Harrod's just across the road, he can send someone to fetch it for him, but he's paying for it himself.

All those friends who put up hundreds of thousands in his defense have been screwed--I'll bet he hasn't paid them back, either.

Here at DU, there are still people who believe in Swedish CIA honeypot entrapment operatives, in a convoluted, James-Bond-film-worthy effort to get that pompous little weasel to Gitmo.

And of course, I'm an astronaut!

[treestar]

12. I don't think so. That is the one argument that makes the whole US vs. Julian

conspiracy extremely silly.

[Luminous Animal]

18. The UK Independent reports in December of 2010

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

If I were Assange's lawyers, I'd take any bit of reported information seriously.

[ucrdem]

22. Reuters via HuffPo, Aug. 22, 2012: This Parrot is Dead

"Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Founder, Faces No Criminal Charges In U.S., Sources Say"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-no-criminal-charges-in-us_n_1823159.html

Whatever hope Assange and friends may have cherished of getting the US to play hide and seek with them has evidently been extinguished. But as long as his peroxide supply holds up at the Embassy I imagine he can play the fugitive indefinitely.

[Luminous Animal]

25. So, what? The Austrialian and UK press reports that there will be. The U.S. press reports that

there currently isn't and all may be correct. When planning a legal strategy, it's best not to rely on the U.S. press.

Nothing has been extinguished.

And your last sentence is too juvenile to consider.

[ucrdem]

27. Your Indepenent link is from 2010.

Times change. Read the Reuters article at HuffPo and you'll see why this is not gonna happen.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Sorry. I can't trust the latest U.S. government anonymous sources to deliver the truth.

No matter what year it is.

[ucrdem]

33. It names 2 US sources, but the point is it's politically a dead letter. n/t

[leveymg]

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.

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.

[LittleBlue]

38. I recall a wrinkle in UK law

If the extradition could cause a death penalty or other inhumane treatment, the UK is obliged to deny extradition on human rights grounds.

Sweden has actually been complicit in human rights violations resulting from extradition. I recall at least one detainee ended up in a secret prison courtesy of Sweden.

[struggle4progress]

41. "... Sweden (as the UK) is party to the European Convention of Human Rights. The convention has been

incorporated in Swedish law which makes it directly applicable for all state agencies, courts and the Government. Following the Soering Case, Sweden (and the UK) are prohibited from extraditing a person who may face the death penalty. Subject to are obligations from European Convention of Human and the Convention against Torture there is also a prohibition from extraditing somebody where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture ..."
http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html

[LittleBlue]

42. Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today...

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

Straight from Human Rights Watch and the UN

[struggle4progress]

43. Report on CIA rendition reveals massive scale of European assistance

Open Society research assembles long roster of nations willing to help the Bush administration with extra-legal program
Tom McCarthy
Tuesday 5 February 2013 14.24 EST

... Of pre-2004 European Union states, only three – France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – apparently sat out the CIA's global kidnap-and-torture program ... A new report by the Open Society Justice Initiative names 54 foreign governments that participated in the CIA program ... The report also assembles the most comprehensive list to date of terror suspects caught up in the CIA program and tracks the fate of each suspect ... The report lists 136 suspects in all ... Italy has convicted officials on criminal charges for their involvement. Canada apologized to Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was picked up at JFK airport in New York City and flown to Syria, where he was "imprisoned for more than ten months in a tiny grave-like cell, beaten with cables, and threatened with electric shocks" ... Canada, Sweden, Australia and the United Kingdom have issued compensation to extraordinary rendition victims ... The Danish government has reported "more than 100 flights credibly alleged to be involved in extraordinary renditions had passed through Danish airspace ... A 2007 European Parliament report "express<ed> serious concern about the 147 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Irish airports ... Finnish records show 150 landings in Finland by aircraft associated with the CIA program ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-help-european-leaders

The Open Society Initiatives report lists the two known cases (Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery ) in Sweden, rendered in December 2001. These cases provoked public outcry in Sweden. According to the report

... in 2008, the Swedish chancellor of justice awarded Agiza and al-Zery approximately three million Swedish kronor (approximately $500,000) each as compensation for Sweden’s involvement in their rendition and torture. In July 2012, Ahmed Agiza was granted permanent residence in Sweden ...

The UK has been less forthcoming regarding its apparently longer term and more substantial involvement. The report indicates there is evidence implicating the UK in the renditions of a number of people, including Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna (2002), Binyam Mohamed (2002), Omar Deghayes (2002), Sami al-Saadi (2004), Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq and his wife Fatima Bouchar (2004), and in several of these cases the UK also seems to have been involved in the torture. According to the report:

In November 2010, the U.K. government entered into a confidential settlement with Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el-Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed, and Martin Mubanga ... In June 2009, after MI6 itself referred one of its officers to the attorney general, the police commenced Operation Iden, an investigation into the actions of MI6 officers who interrogated suspects at the U.S.-run prison at Bagram, Afghanistan, in January 2002 ... In December 2012, the British government paid al-Saadi £2.23m to settle his lawsuit without admitting liability

[jazzimov]

39. There is one problem with all of the "extradition"

conspiracy theories -

The US hasn't charged him.

He keeps yelling that the reason he won't come out from Embassy protection is that he doesn't want to be extradited to the US.

Except that the US hasn't charged him with anything, and so has no basis to extradite him.

People, please. If you have been following this guy at all - he is a snake-oil salesman. Even his own site WikiLeaks has abandoned him. He's an opportunist. he's a jerk. He hurts the cause of Transparency much more than he helps it.

I support sincere transparency. I hate Assange. He hurts our cause. He is an idiot, and makes the rest of us look like idiots.

Fuck Julian Assange.

[Recursion]

44. The US isn't claiming Assange violated US law

A third party extranational who receives US classified information was never read into it and isn't legally obligated not to disclose it.

[randome]

48. Here are the players in the vast left-wing conspiracy to 'get' Assange.

U.K. government
U.S. government
Swedish government
Australia
Swedish prosecutors
The 2 Swedish women
The U.K. appeals process (for 2 years)
Interpol

And with all these players, they can't seem to corral this guy. I'd say it's much more likely that there is no conspiracy and that Assange, with an ego too big to control, is unable to face the facts of his sexual embarrassments.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]