h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"there's no way on earth he would be extradited from anywhere in Europe to face a possible death sentence in the US. The ECHR is quite explicit on this point"

Two names: Mohammed al-Zari, and Ahmed Agiza.

Handed over by the Swedish government to the CIA in 2001, and rendered illegally to Egypt.

"Extradition" from Sweden is not the issue. They've demonstrated that they're prepared to ignore international law on this. THAT is why Assange's fears are reasonable, and very much not tin-hattery.

His supporters are not saying "Sweden might do this bad thing". They're saying "Sweden might do this bad thing AGAIN". There's a big, big difference.

The Swiss have interrupted Russian transports several times (they're just in my mind because of a recent bit of reading)

We may or may not - interrupting diplomatic transport is uncommon but not rare - it is done with suspected drug passages even with the biggest countries

Russia (or ecuador in the actual circumstances) can refuse to have the package opened but it would simply be returned to the embassy, if a single mistake was made in stamping and certification we'd be on him instantly

Equally Hoo, we could point to Britain's role in extradition. Why is it *more* likely he'll be extradited from Sweden than Britain?

Let's put this another way - this man is very likely to have played a part in the murder, torture and imprisonment of journalists, democracy activists and other innocent people around the world. It's also possible he is a rapist and serial sexual predator. Is it not right and proper that these charges be heard and weighed in a court?

"we could point to Britain's role in extradition. Why is it *more* likely he'll be extradited from Sweden"

Is this thing on? I believe I said just a few minutes ago, extradition from Sweden is not the issue. ILLEGAL RENDITION from Sweden is the issue. The Swedes have form for that. We don't (that I'm aware of being public knowledge, at least).

If the Swedish authorities wanted to question him regarding the sexual assault allegations (note: he's not (I think) been charged), they've had ample opportunity to do so - they could do so even now - and have repeatedly declined.

They demonstrably don't WANT to talk to him about the allegations. They want him back on their territory, and refuse to give any assurances about their conduct towards him once he's there. Why would anyone trust them? They're doing everything they can to come across as shifty and untrustworthy.

Ah, you might want to go and tell the Ecuadorians that. In their statement granting Assange asylum they "cited concerns that Assange might be extradited to the US, allowing him to be executed. Patiño claims that Sweden has refused to rule out the extradition of Assange if it were requested by the United States."

They're worried about extradition. I'd imagine they'd be jolly upset at rendition. Someone should tell them.

In the 90s, Garzón, who is now defending Assange, sent through Interpol an order to arrest Pinochet, who was in London those days. It was accepted and Pinochet would be extradited to Spain where he would be judged for the Operación Cóndor, there were Spaniards among the assassinated ones, not only Chileans.
What happened eventually is that Britain sent Pinochet to Chile instead of to Spain, and the criminal could get away from all the monstruosities he did.

Britain can and should give Assange the safe path to Ecuador and get rid of something which clearly belong to US´ interests.
There´s not a Swedish judge acting as Garzón did with Pinochet, there´s only the allegations of a prosecutor, allegations without any evidence, filled with inconsistencies and that´s why they only can “make Assange a few questions” And because that´s all , the prosecutor doesn´t go to Britain, they want him at Sweden for the reasons already said by others here.

Garzón is going to ask legal protection to the International Court, if Britain doesn´t follow what International law says, that´s is, give the safe path when someone has been given the assylum.
Garzón is not new in these affairs and I trust him when he says that things will get solved diplomatically.

Surely its unlikely that Assange would be rendited from Sweden because of his public notability? Whatever publicity is caused by a "normal" rendition, I sadly fear it would be greater for Assange.

And also I don't think the Swedish government would like to deal with their domestic problems of sending someone away so he couldn't be tried for his crimes committed there

"sending someone away so he couldn't be tried for his crimes committed there"

Oh, they'd try him.
"Hello Mr. Assange, these two women say that you... what's that madam? You withdraw the charges? Fair enough. Mr. Assange, you're free to go... with the two American gentlemen in dark glasses who are standing behind you. Court dismissed."

End of trial. Sweden off the hook. Assange disappears. "Who, us? Nah, mate, never saw anything". Job done.

“The allegations that a weak Sweden would not be able to resist pressure from the United States for extradition is nonsense. Assange can not be transferred on any matter without Britain's approval.”

Göteborgs-Posten

http://www.france24.com/en/20120817-uk-press-review-assange-ecuador-asylum-diplomacy-row-sweden-times-guardian

Is that the case, does Britain have any say when, as Hoo says, the charges are dropped?

I don't know, but I bet the judge is regretting giving him two weeks out on bail by now - not that he was wrong to do so - you can't anticipate Assange causing diplomatic nightmares

Hey the guy just looks creepy in a blonde sorta
nasty maniacal Nazi way. Just like Brevick.
Take him out in a boat and don't bring 'im back.
His pores are too tight and he squints.
Never trust Aryans.

~jwf~

(If this post gets yikesed I'm outa here.
My final words will be something about the sad
demise of humour in the western whirled.)

Perhaps a will spare me.

<>

Not as much as those luvvies Ken Loach, Bianca Jagger and Jemima Khan who have just been stiffed for his £240,000 bail".

Indeed, I don't think i would bail many people who were being sought by the US government for treason

...Assange is not one of those people

Mark Weisbrot is a north american economist who knows very well the reality in south America. I think his opinion on this issue is relevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador?intcmp=239

<<Correa didn't want this mess and it has been a lose-lose situation for him from the beginning. He has suffered increased tension with three countries that are diplomatically important to Ecuador – the US, UK and Sweden. The US is Ecuador's largest trading partner and has several times threatened to cut off trade preferences that support thousands of Ecuadorian jobs. And since most of the major international media has been hostile to Assange from the beginning, they have used the asylum request to attack Ecuador, accusing the government of a "crackdown" on the media at home. As I have noted elsewhere, this is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of Ecuador, which has an uncensored media that is mostly opposed to the government. And for most of the world, these misleading news reports are all that they will hear or read about Ecuador for a long time.<<<


Where he says " as I have noted elsewhere," you can click and read his interesting article on the media in Ecuador.

But then, if Ecuador have Assange that would be a lovely pawn to play in trade negotiations, no?

Yeah but losing Assange is probably less of an argument to USA than the jobs and money are to Ecuador - if they're going that approach (or at least for diplomatic favours) they're playing a very risky game

Hmmm....
I wonder where Assange does his banking?
He must have a buck or two stashed somewhere,
Shirley.

And what are that country's arrangements
regarding money transfers to misc countries
such as, let's say Ecuador, the US, the UK,
Norway, Sweden...

Follow the money.


~jwf~

Sweden wants Assange for one thing: accusations of sexual misocnduct.

The U.S. wants him for something else: charges of treason.

He's made some people awfully angry. Maybe some of them deserved what they got. Maybe some others didn't. Innocent bystanders? Probably. Bradley Manning, a U.S. servicemen who provided Assange with sensitive documents, will go on trial in September. Prosecutors have said they would not seek the death penalty. Would it make a difference if U.S. officials said they would not seek the death penalty against Assange?

(a) You cannot be a traitor to a different country. Assange is not a US citizen. Whatever else the US might try him for, they cannot charge him with treason.

(b) I believe you're thinking of Breanna Manning, but admittedly it's hard to be certain, as zie has, necessarily, been largely incommunicado.

TRiG.

Foreign ministers from across the American continent will meet next Friday to discuss the impasse between the UK and Ecuador over Julian Assange.

At emergency talks held by the OAS in Washington, US envoy Carmen Lomellin said a meeting of foreign ministers "would be unhelpful and harmful to the OAS' reputation as an institution".

She said the US - which was joined in a no vote by Canada, and Trinidad and Tobago - did not "recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19303615