SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ecuador's foreign minister has blamed Britain over the stalemate surrounding WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange following rekindled attempts to secure his safe exit from Quito's embassy in London.
"On the issue of mediation, I have to say very honestly that it has not been successful because two parties are needed to mediate, [sic]" Maria Fernanda Espinosa, the Ecuadorian foreign minister, told reporters Friday with respect to the Assange case, Agence France-Presse translated.
"Ecuador is willing but the other party is not," she added, referring to Britain, according to Reuters.
On the other hand, from the same source, and as we have already reported:
British authorities argue that Mr. Assange, an Australian, was under house arrest when he entered the embassy and should be apprehended for having breached his bail conditions if and when he exits.
Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/23/ecuador-blames-britain-over-julian-assange-impasse/
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday February 26 2018, @12:24PM (8 children)
Which makes even less sense: the extradition treaty between Sweden and the UK does not allow Sweden to forward-extradite him.
No, they're annoyed with him because he agreed to bail terms and then jumped bail. He didn't turn up for extradition hearings and argue his case in court, he just violated the terms of his bail.
If he were deported, it would be back to his country of citizenship - formerly Australia, now Ecuador.
Yes, because that guarantee made no sense. The UK had not received an extradition request from the USA and extradition to Sweden would not have permitted Sweden to extradite him to the USA (without violating the extradition treaty with the UK), so extradition to the USA wasn't on the table. No one was going to give him a blank cheque against future extradition requests, because that kind of thing has to go through the courts. If the USA filed an extradition request then they'd have to provide evidence that he'd committed a crime, that the crime was one recognised by the UK, that he would not suffer the death penalty if convicted, that he would receive a fair trial, and so on. His lawyers could quite easily have challenged several of these claims, which is probably why the USA never bothered to try to extradite him.
About the only plausible thing that might have happened was that the UK extradite him to Sweden and then refuse him entry back, at which point he'd have been deported to Australia. At the time, the Australian government was very pro-US, so might have bent their extradition rules to send him there.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @12:50AM (7 children)
There's no "forward extradition" involved, I don't think (can't find any definition) only chain of custody.
The way it's assumed the plan would work is:
Ecuador gives him to U.K for bail-jumping or whatever.
U.K. inflicts whatever "justice" they want, possibly purely symbolic.
... but, Assange is now in U.K. jurisdiction, so they're free to extradite him to Sweden for outstanding rape charges
Sweden inflicts whatever "justice" they want, probably nothing since the charges have long since been shown to be unsubstantiated
... but, Assange is now in Swedish jurisdiction, so they're free to extradite him to the U.S.
U.S. inflicts the "justice" Assange is actually afraid of.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:54AM (6 children)
Nope. Assange is in Sweden as a result of extradition. The Swedes are required by the extradition treaty to either charge him with a crime or permit him to leave the country. They are not allowed to extradite him to the USA, he must be allowed to return to the UK (which may deport him to his country of Ecuador). This provision is explicitly in most extradition treaties to prevent countries from sending indirect extradition requests that they think will be more readily accepted.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:44PM (5 children)
The "permit him to leave the country" could really be all it takes. All you have to do is follow him and notify your allies that he'll be leaving the country at , or is on a plane that will land there, and they can be waiting to apprehend him there. Seems like you would thus live up to the letter of your treaty obligations, while falling only just shy of actually personally handing him over to your allies.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:03PM
Oops, markeup malfunction, that should be:
...leaving the country at [time and location], or is on a plane...
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:03AM (2 children)
Pretty much anybody in power anywhere doesn't like Assange. They might not want a US snatch squad operating on their turf, but most politicians would be happy to have their own police 'detain him for questioning' while the extradition process goes through, and then hand him over.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:57PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @09:23AM
Possibly illegal for Sweden to do this (who enforces laws that control sovereign countries?), but even with your laws, there is nothing to stop Sweden saying "It's all cleared up, you are free to go, have a nice day! Bye". Then what?
How does he get to Ecuador, given that the yanks were willing to force down the President of Bolivia's plane just based on a rumour of Snowden being on board.